April 26, 2013, By Bill Silverfarb Daily Journal
San Mateo City Manager Susan Loftus is searching for an independent auditor to review the city’s Community Development Department after a number of “hiccups” it has had over the past several months, Mayor David Lim told a group of business leaders Thursday.
Lim sat down with a slew of tenants who call the Borel Estate Building home including lawyers, financiers and bankers in a meet and greet hosted by Linda Asbury with the Economic Development Growth Enterprise, an initiative of the San Mateo Area Chamber of Commerce.
Lim fielded questions about why the city does not allow for beekeeping, whether a public plaza should be built downtown, what the impacts of high-speed rail will be on the city and what the status of some of the city’s newest developments are, including Bay Meadows and Station Park Green, to be built on the current site where Kmart sits on Delaware Street.
A review of the Community Development Department will be undertaken because it oversees the city’s planning and building divisions and other city functions such as code enforcement, Lim said. Loftus should have an auditor picked within two months, he said.
“We are doing more with less,” Lim said about city staff. The 7-Eleven situation on San Mateo Drive is one of the hiccups to which Lim was referring.
“The permits were issued in error. It was glaring. There were two different planners and no file,” he said.
Code enforcement also caused a stir for a group of mechanics and auto body shops on Claremont Street last year for being cited for violations they were unaware of, Lim said. The proposed fines for the violation were exorbitant, Lim said.
He was also asked whether the city is “welcoming” the California High-Speed Rail Authority project. The already approved “blended system,” Lim said, will electrify Caltrain and bring other benefits to the area and be less intrusive than the authority’s original proposals.
San Mateo will hopefully get a grade separation at 25th Avenue out of the deal, he said.
“We got to get what we can get,” said Lim, who is not convinced high-speed rail trains will ever actually access the Caltrain corridor.
Lim told the group that he’s most proud of his work on the council the past three years for his advocacy for small business.
He helped Silver Lake Seafood restaurant get a loading zone approved after it applied for one two years before. The restaurant owners called Lim who then found out that their permit application had simply been misplaced the whole time.
He also helped the owners of a building on 38th Avenue and El Camino Real where a Starbucks is located find another tenant for the two-storefront building after being told there was not enough parking on the site to accommodate another tenant. City staff had simply miscalculated the parking requirements, Lim said. The Shred Center now occupies the other storefront.
Moving forward, the mayor envisions moving the tennis courts at Central Park in favor of building a community center on the site. He looks to enhance downtown with more cultural arts in the future, also.
Lim even fielded questions about bees, which the city limits.
The Beekeepers Alliance of San Mateo County approached the city recently about allowing for keepers to keep more bees on their properties.
The city limits one hive, or box per resident, however, Lim said, and that will not change.
Some who attended the meet and greet included Vince Cirigliano with Borel Financial Inc., Kenyon Mark Lee with Lee Law Offices, Timothy Martin with Martin Family Law firm, Daniel J. O’Brien with California Bank & Trust and Walter R. Chao with Dragon Financial Group.
silverfarb@smdailyjournal.com (650) 344-5200 ext. 106
Tweet
Showing posts with label Budget. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Budget. Show all posts
Friday, April 26, 2013
Friday, September 21, 2012
7-Eleven approval met with scrutiny
| September 19, 2012, 05:00 AM By Bill Silverfarb Daily Journal staff | |||||
A 7-Eleven has been approved to replace the vacant Stangelini’s Italian Deli & Hilltop Market in San Mateo by city staff but Deputy Mayor David Lim has requested a series of public hearings to determine whether the land should be kept as residential, as it is currently zoned. The deli was vacant for so long, nearly two years, that the property on North San Mateo Drive is now zoned for multi-family residences. A 7-Eleven or any other retail establishment proposed for the site is considered a non-conforming use since the land is zoned residential. City staff approved 7-Eleven’s zoning application Aug. 30 after developer, Portfolio Development Partners, held a community outreach meeting at the Martin Luther King Jr. Center in February. Portfolio was granted a zoning code amendment, since the building is now considered non-conforming, to re-establish a grocery store use on the site. Lim requested a hearing regarding the possible termination and removal of the non-conforming use at 501 N. San Mateo Drive, near the Burlingame border, after hearing from neighbors near the site who complained about the potential for increased crime, traffic and the oversaturation of convenience stores in the area. Lim suspects neighborhood residents would be more favorable to a use similar to Stangelini’s rather than a 7-Eleven, which stays open 24 hours a day and sells alcohol and cigarettes. An official with Portfolio would not comment to the Daily Journal yesterday on the issue. The initial plan was to restore the property as a grocery store but Josh Amoroso with Portfolio previously told the Daily Journal that housing was also a possibility for the site. Lim and other councilmembers have received numerous emails from neighbors near the site in the past week saying they had concerns about a 7-Eleven popping up in the area. The Planning Commission is scheduled to hold a public hearing in October on the use of the property and the City Council is tentatively scheduled to hear the matter at its Nov. 19 meeting. If the council finds the 7-Eleven to be a non-conforming use for the site, the developer will have a minimum of two years and maximum of up to five years to maintain a non-conforming use on the site. After that, the use would revert to residential. Lim is seeking to have the hearings soon since the developer has not invested any serious money in improvements to the property, Lim said. Lane Kashiwahara and his wife attended the community meeting at the King Center in February and left it with the impression that a “neighborhood market” was proposed for the site. “City employees assured us that there would be additional information and notices sent out related to this project. As you know, we received no further communication,” Kashiwahara wrote Lim in an email. The Kashiwahara’s contend a 7-Eleven would “sacrifice the integrity of the neighborhood and its charm.” There are plenty of other markets in the area, they wrote, that already serve alcohol and cigarettes. Lim is seeking a review of the non-conforming use since the deli’s use was authorized more than 20 years ago. Now is the time to determine whether the non-conforming use is proper, so as to minimize the impact on the property owners, Lim wrote City Manager Susan Loftus when making his request for a public hearing. “The surrounding community deserves a public hearing to weigh in on whether the current non-conforming use should remain in the community,” Lim wrote to Loftus. Bill Silverfarb can be reached by email: silverfarb@smdailyjournal.com or by phone: (650) 344-5200 ext. 106. | |||||
Tweet
Sunday, July 15, 2012
Slurry Sealing, Ferric Chloride, and Root Foaming: The Exciting World of the Consent Calendar
Many of you have probably looked at a City Council agenda and noticed that the large majority of items are located under "Consent Calendar".
And if you've watched a City Council meeting, you've also noticed that the "Consent Calendar" items are usually passed as one item with no discussion, no debate, and take less time to pass than it took me to type this paragraph.
However, rest assured that a lot of work goes into a "Consent Calendar" item by myself and City staff before a City Council meeting.
The History of the Consent Calendar
Under parliamentary rules governing City Council meetings, Consent Calendar items are reserved for items that are deemed to be non-controversial. They allow a City Council to save the bulk of it's meeting time for issues in which there is a need for a serious public debate.
Thus, you'll see a lot of Consent Calendar items deal with the routine maintenance of our City infrastructure dealing with items necessary for the health and well-being of our City.
The Public Works Department usually has several items on the Consent Calendar. Items like "2011 Citywide Slurry Seal Project" (dealing with sealing and maintaining our streets). Or "Supply of Ferric Chloride for Wastewater Treatment Plant" ("for sulvite control in the transfer of dewatered biosolids in order to minimize crystallization within the pipes" -- say that ten times fast!). Or "Root Foaming for City Sewers" ( to control the growth of tree roots).
All of these items are important to the City, and because they deal with the expenditure of over $100,000 or City funds, by law the contracts for these services must be approved by the City Council. Thus, they make their way onto the Consent Calendar.
Working Behind The Scenes to Ensure a Smooth Consent Calendar
While it appears that the City Council and City staff spend mere minutes passing the Consent Calendar at the formal meeting, rest assured that there is a lot more done behind the scenes with each item.
First, City staff spend days, weeks, and months negotiating, analyzing, and working on each contract or issue put up on the Consent Calendar. If an item is not fully prepared and vetted, it does not make it to the Consent Calendar.
Second, each Consent Calendar item is presented to the City Council with a full staff report written by a City staff member who is an expert in their field. Every fact and figure is summarized to the City Council, and more detailed information is often provided as attachments to the report. City staff are also available to answer any questions raised by the Council up until the Consent Calendar is voted on.
Finally, as your elected representative, I go through each and every Consent Calendar item before a City Council meeting. Because I am responsible to represent each resident of San Mateo and need to ensure the wise use of your tax dollars, I do the following for each item:
There have been times in the past where I have removed an item from the Consent Calendar. Click HERE to see the minutes of a council meeting in 2010 where I pulled an item from the Consent Calendar.
Anyone Can Pull An Item Off The Consent Calendar
If I am not satisfied at any point during my review of a Consent Calendar item, I will ask to pull that item off the Consent Calendar so that the item can be reviewed in a full public hearing.
That is the key to remember: An item on the Consent Calendar may be pulled by a Councilmember or anyone else at any time before it is voted on.
Many times, my questions will lead to an item being pulled in advance of the City Council meeting.
However, in the majority of cases, our City staff is so professional, their reports need no questions or follow-up.
Thus, while Consent Calendar items may seem mundane, with little work done on them, now you know how much work is done by City staff and your City Council to review these items and ensure a healthy City for all of us!
Tweet
And if you've watched a City Council meeting, you've also noticed that the "Consent Calendar" items are usually passed as one item with no discussion, no debate, and take less time to pass than it took me to type this paragraph.
However, rest assured that a lot of work goes into a "Consent Calendar" item by myself and City staff before a City Council meeting.
The History of the Consent Calendar
Under parliamentary rules governing City Council meetings, Consent Calendar items are reserved for items that are deemed to be non-controversial. They allow a City Council to save the bulk of it's meeting time for issues in which there is a need for a serious public debate.
Thus, you'll see a lot of Consent Calendar items deal with the routine maintenance of our City infrastructure dealing with items necessary for the health and well-being of our City.
The Public Works Department usually has several items on the Consent Calendar. Items like "2011 Citywide Slurry Seal Project" (dealing with sealing and maintaining our streets). Or "Supply of Ferric Chloride for Wastewater Treatment Plant" ("for sulvite control in the transfer of dewatered biosolids in order to minimize crystallization within the pipes" -- say that ten times fast!). Or "Root Foaming for City Sewers" ( to control the growth of tree roots).
All of these items are important to the City, and because they deal with the expenditure of over $100,000 or City funds, by law the contracts for these services must be approved by the City Council. Thus, they make their way onto the Consent Calendar.
Working Behind The Scenes to Ensure a Smooth Consent Calendar
While it appears that the City Council and City staff spend mere minutes passing the Consent Calendar at the formal meeting, rest assured that there is a lot more done behind the scenes with each item.
First, City staff spend days, weeks, and months negotiating, analyzing, and working on each contract or issue put up on the Consent Calendar. If an item is not fully prepared and vetted, it does not make it to the Consent Calendar.
Second, each Consent Calendar item is presented to the City Council with a full staff report written by a City staff member who is an expert in their field. Every fact and figure is summarized to the City Council, and more detailed information is often provided as attachments to the report. City staff are also available to answer any questions raised by the Council up until the Consent Calendar is voted on.
Finally, as your elected representative, I go through each and every Consent Calendar item before a City Council meeting. Because I am responsible to represent each resident of San Mateo and need to ensure the wise use of your tax dollars, I do the following for each item:
- Thoroughly read each staff report and attachments
- Do an internet search of each company the City is contracting with to read about the company, check consumer reports, and check the license status of companies requiring contractor's licenses, business licenses, etc.
- Where necessary, I follow up with an email or phone call to the City Manager or appropriate City staff member to get additional information.
There have been times in the past where I have removed an item from the Consent Calendar. Click HERE to see the minutes of a council meeting in 2010 where I pulled an item from the Consent Calendar.
Anyone Can Pull An Item Off The Consent Calendar
If I am not satisfied at any point during my review of a Consent Calendar item, I will ask to pull that item off the Consent Calendar so that the item can be reviewed in a full public hearing.
That is the key to remember: An item on the Consent Calendar may be pulled by a Councilmember or anyone else at any time before it is voted on.
Many times, my questions will lead to an item being pulled in advance of the City Council meeting.
However, in the majority of cases, our City staff is so professional, their reports need no questions or follow-up.
Thus, while Consent Calendar items may seem mundane, with little work done on them, now you know how much work is done by City staff and your City Council to review these items and ensure a healthy City for all of us!
Tweet
Thursday, June 21, 2012
City of San Mateo Passes Balanced Budget with No Cuts to Service
On Monday, June 18, I was please to join with my fellow Councilmembers in unanimously passing a balanced budget totaling $118 million in operating expenses (of which $74 million is for the general fund).
Passage of this budget closed a $4.3 million budget gap thanks to deep consessions by our local labor unions and smart savings by each department within the City of San Mateo.
The budget as passed does not cut any important safety or recreational services to our citizens. The budget includes a provision to hire up to four new police officers to improve public safety, continue to repair and refurbish our aging infrastructure such as roads, sewers, and storm drains, and enhance and upgrade our parks and recreation facilities.
The budget also includes items to ensure affordable housing, maintain quality fire prevention services, and address adequate planning and building to continue to grow our city in a sustainably responsible manner.
To view the report on our budget, click here.
Tweet
Passage of this budget closed a $4.3 million budget gap thanks to deep consessions by our local labor unions and smart savings by each department within the City of San Mateo.
The budget as passed does not cut any important safety or recreational services to our citizens. The budget includes a provision to hire up to four new police officers to improve public safety, continue to repair and refurbish our aging infrastructure such as roads, sewers, and storm drains, and enhance and upgrade our parks and recreation facilities.
The budget also includes items to ensure affordable housing, maintain quality fire prevention services, and address adequate planning and building to continue to grow our city in a sustainably responsible manner.
To view the report on our budget, click here.
Tweet
Thursday, May 24, 2012
San Mateo Taxpayers Should Not Subsidize Caltrain Alone
This blurb appeared in the "Reporters' Notebook" section of today's San Mateo Daily Journal:
San Mateo Deputy Mayor David Lim told Caltrain spokesman Mark Simon Monday night that if the transit agency seeks a San Mateo County only tax to fund its operations he will stand in firm opposition to it. Lim said San Mateo County residents should not be subsidizing the service for residents in Santa Clara and San Francisco counties. Caltrain is seeking a dedicated funding source as it is considering a three-county tax and other ideas to fund the service.
Tweet
San Mateo Deputy Mayor David Lim told Caltrain spokesman Mark Simon Monday night that if the transit agency seeks a San Mateo County only tax to fund its operations he will stand in firm opposition to it. Lim said San Mateo County residents should not be subsidizing the service for residents in Santa Clara and San Francisco counties. Caltrain is seeking a dedicated funding source as it is considering a three-county tax and other ideas to fund the service.
Tweet
Monday, May 7, 2012
Working to Oversee Sound Budget Practices
A good Councilmember should strive to oversee routine financial matters to ensure the integrity of all financial records subject to City Council review, and not just when things look suspicious.
To that end, yesterday I asked to review the private auditor report for the Downtown San Mateo Association (DSMA) in advance of approval of the annual assessment for the Downtown Business Improvement Area (DBIA).
Since 1986, the DSMA has been the administrator for the DBIA, which assesses a yearly fee to businesses in the Downtown San Mateo area. The fees are used to funds event, marketing efforts, and physical improvements meant to enhance and promote our Downtown district. Annual assessment fees can range from $65 to $1300 depending on the size of the business.
While the DSMA has an independent Board of Directors that administers the DBIA, state law provides the City Council with oversight authority for the assessment fees.
In reviewing the request for assessments to be renewed for the coming fiscal year, I noticed that a review of the independent audit for the DSMA (which is required at least once every two years) has not been completed in over three years.
Therefore, I have asked City staff to obtain the most recent independent audit of how the DSMA is using the assessment fees from local businesses. A thorough review of that audit will be conducted by me and other members of the Council before a final decision is made on approving the annual assessment for the DBIA this year.
As the old saying goes, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." Reviewing financial audits for a group that has performed well over the years may not be the most exciting thing to do, but as your Councilmember it is something I am committed to doing to maintain the public trust.
To view the staff report on the DBIA assessment due to be discussed tonight, click HERE.
Tweet
To that end, yesterday I asked to review the private auditor report for the Downtown San Mateo Association (DSMA) in advance of approval of the annual assessment for the Downtown Business Improvement Area (DBIA).
Since 1986, the DSMA has been the administrator for the DBIA, which assesses a yearly fee to businesses in the Downtown San Mateo area. The fees are used to funds event, marketing efforts, and physical improvements meant to enhance and promote our Downtown district. Annual assessment fees can range from $65 to $1300 depending on the size of the business.
While the DSMA has an independent Board of Directors that administers the DBIA, state law provides the City Council with oversight authority for the assessment fees.
In reviewing the request for assessments to be renewed for the coming fiscal year, I noticed that a review of the independent audit for the DSMA (which is required at least once every two years) has not been completed in over three years.
Therefore, I have asked City staff to obtain the most recent independent audit of how the DSMA is using the assessment fees from local businesses. A thorough review of that audit will be conducted by me and other members of the Council before a final decision is made on approving the annual assessment for the DBIA this year.
As the old saying goes, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." Reviewing financial audits for a group that has performed well over the years may not be the most exciting thing to do, but as your Councilmember it is something I am committed to doing to maintain the public trust.
To view the staff report on the DBIA assessment due to be discussed tonight, click HERE.
Tweet
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Ensuring fiscal transparency of YOUR tax dollars
Yesterday I took steps to ensure the transparency and safety of how YOUR tax dollars are spent.
In June of this year, while reviewing the City Budget for fiscal year 2011-2012, I noticed an account in the City general fund for half a million dollars for "General Contingency Reserves".
The purpose of the account, in existence since 1992, is to fill short-falls in department budgets which occur naturally over the course of the year. For example, say the public works department has to spend extra money due to winter storm that causes flooding in our streets, the $500,000 contingency reserve account could be used to fund the efforts to clean up our streets and protect our homes.
The general contingency reserve is an important account to have. However, I noticed one problem. The account could be spent by the City Manger with no oversight from either the City Council or taxpayers. In other words, there was no one to oversee how the money was being spent.
In my opinion, this created a lack of fiscal transparency in how the City spends your hard-earned tax dollars. In June I raised this issue with City Staff, and urged them to close this loophole.
I am pleased to report that last night along with my fellow Councilmembers, we closed the loophole to the half a million dollar account.
The City Manager will still have the authority to use the contingency reserve fund to close short-falls in department budgets. Now, however, the City Manager will be required to report those expenditures to the City Council and the public in the form of a quarterly balance statement.
This statement will be required to be on the agenda of a public City Council meeting, so that both the Council and the public will be able to account for every dollar spent in the contingency reserve fund.
I believe this action creates a more transparent, open process to how the City spends your tax dollars. In these tough economic times, every penny counts!
As we head into the next fiscal year, I will continue to monitor our finances and find more ways to increase efficiency and transparency in our City finances.
To view last night's report on this item, click here.
Tweet
In June of this year, while reviewing the City Budget for fiscal year 2011-2012, I noticed an account in the City general fund for half a million dollars for "General Contingency Reserves".
The purpose of the account, in existence since 1992, is to fill short-falls in department budgets which occur naturally over the course of the year. For example, say the public works department has to spend extra money due to winter storm that causes flooding in our streets, the $500,000 contingency reserve account could be used to fund the efforts to clean up our streets and protect our homes.
The general contingency reserve is an important account to have. However, I noticed one problem. The account could be spent by the City Manger with no oversight from either the City Council or taxpayers. In other words, there was no one to oversee how the money was being spent.
In my opinion, this created a lack of fiscal transparency in how the City spends your hard-earned tax dollars. In June I raised this issue with City Staff, and urged them to close this loophole.
I am pleased to report that last night along with my fellow Councilmembers, we closed the loophole to the half a million dollar account.
The City Manager will still have the authority to use the contingency reserve fund to close short-falls in department budgets. Now, however, the City Manager will be required to report those expenditures to the City Council and the public in the form of a quarterly balance statement.
This statement will be required to be on the agenda of a public City Council meeting, so that both the Council and the public will be able to account for every dollar spent in the contingency reserve fund.
I believe this action creates a more transparent, open process to how the City spends your tax dollars. In these tough economic times, every penny counts!
As we head into the next fiscal year, I will continue to monitor our finances and find more ways to increase efficiency and transparency in our City finances.
To view last night's report on this item, click here.
Tweet
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Group plans to protest at aging bridge
| October 13, 2011, 04:52 AM By Bill Silverfarb Daily Journal staff |
In an effort to pressure Congress to pass jobs legislation, a local group of activists is planning a protest Friday on a bridge in San Mateo they say is structurally unsafe and should be fixed with federal stimulus money. The Mid-Peninsula American Dream Council, in solidarity with the Occupy Wall Street movement, wants Congress to put money toward fixing the country’s ailing infrastructure and to create jobs in the process. The local Dream Council is a relatively new group made up of MoveOn.org members that rallied in August at U.S. Rep. Anna Eshoo’s Palo Alto office. At 4 p.m. Friday, the group hopes to attract at least 100 people for a rally at a bridge that crosses State Route 92 at Alameda de las Pulgas in San Mateo to highlight the bridge’s state of disrepair. The bridge, built in 1963, has a current structural rating of “4” for the deck, considered to be structurally deficient, requiring frequent monitoring and repair, according to the Federal Highway Administration’s 2010 National Bridge Inventory. The bridge has a superstructure rating of “7” and a substructure rating of “5,” according to the report. Any rating below “5” is considered to be structurally deficient. The superstructure supports the deck and the substructure connects the bridge to the ground. The bridge was last inspected in 2008, according to the bridge inventory report. “Fixing our infrastructure is a solution to the jobs problem,” said Cilla Raughley, spokeswoman for the local Dream Council. The intent of the rally, she said, is to pressure Congress to pass the American Jobs Act. But the Senate shot down President Barack Obama’s $447 billion jobs bill Tuesday night. The White House now intends to force additional votes on separate pieces of the measure, such as infrastructure spending, jobless assistance and tax cuts for individuals and businesses. “The government needs to create jobs before making cuts,” Raughley said. “Our aging infrastructure is alarming.” In San Mateo, 74 bridges have been found with ratings below “5,” according to the national bridge inventory report. The bridge at Alameda de las Pulgas where the rally is planned is listed as No. 350161 on the report. The bridge structure itself is the responsibility of Caltrans, said San Mateo Public Works Director Larry Patterson. The city’s responsibility is limited to the paving, railings and other items on the structure, Patterson said. An official with Caltrans did not tell the Daily Journal yesterday whether the bridge was indeed structurally deficient as the report indicates or when the last time the bridge was inspected. Regardless of whose responsibility it is to fix the bridge in San Mateo, the local Dream Council wants it done with federal stimulus money. “Those are good-paying jobs,” Raughley said. She is not sure how many will attend the rally but she is hoping for at least 100. The San Mateo Police Department is aware of the event and will be taking steps to ensure public safety and minimal disruption to residents while respecting the right of all citizens to gather and protest peacefully, according to an email from San Mateo Councilman David Lim. To learn more about the rally visit http://civic.moveon.org/event/events/event.html?event_id=121928 |
Tweet
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Town Hall Meetings Coming to San Mateo
Here is a press release going out from my office tomorrow morning:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
San Mateo, CA – October 10, 2011 – San Mateo City Councilmember David Lim will be helping to host two important town hall meetings in San Mateo over the next three weeks.
On Thursday, October 13, 2011 from 6-8 p.m. at San Mateo City Hall, David will serve as moderator at a town hall meeting featuring Assemblymember Jerry Hill and former Assemblymember Sally Lieber as they discuss “How Redistricting Affects You.”
Sponsored by the San Mateo Chapter of the Organization of Chinese Americans, the event is free to all members of the public. Light refreshments will be served.
“With San Mateo County being drawn into new districts for the California Assembly (22nd District), California Senate (13th District), and U.S. Congress (14th District), it is important for residents to know how these new district boundries will affect their representation at all levels of government,” noted David. “We are lucky to have two of our local leaders from Sacramento on hand to discuss this important topic in an informal town hall format.”
Tweet
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: David Lim, San Mateo City Council
Town Hall Meetings Coming to San Mateo: Councilman David Lim Helps to Host Two Upcoming Town Hall Meetings To Engage Community On Local Issues
On Thursday, October 13, 2011 from 6-8 p.m. at San Mateo City Hall, David will serve as moderator at a town hall meeting featuring Assemblymember Jerry Hill and former Assemblymember Sally Lieber as they discuss “How Redistricting Affects You.”
Sponsored by the San Mateo Chapter of the Organization of Chinese Americans, the event is free to all members of the public. Light refreshments will be served.
“With San Mateo County being drawn into new districts for the California Assembly (22nd District), California Senate (13th District), and U.S. Congress (14th District), it is important for residents to know how these new district boundries will affect their representation at all levels of government,” noted David. “We are lucky to have two of our local leaders from Sacramento on hand to discuss this important topic in an informal town hall format.”
On Tuesday, October 25, 2011 from 6-7 p.m. at the San Mateo Public Library (3rd Ave. at El Camino), David will hosting “San Mateo Unplugged” a town hall meeting to discuss goals and issues important to residents of the City of San Mateo.
In discussing the goal behind “San Mateo Unplugged,” David stated, “Residents asked me to host more informal gathering where instead of agendized meetings, they can just come and chat with members of the City Council about issues important to them. It allows for a more open exchange of ideas about what’s important to our community and how we can work together to make things happen.”
Flyers for both events can be found attached to this press release.
For more information, contact San Mateo City Councilmember David Lim at (415) 290-4044.
Tweet
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Asking Questions About Rising Garbage Rates
This past Monday, the City Council reluctantly agreed to set a public hearing for November on a 9.9% rate increase to our trash bill, but not before I asked some tough questions about the need to increase the rate.
I put together a brief slide presentation on the issue. You can view the slide show by clicking on the link below, and also watch video of Monday's meeting.
My basic issue is whether it is necessary to raise our bills for trash pick up in these tough economic times.
I hope to hear more from all of you when this issue comes up in November.
To view my slide show, click HERE
To view my questions raised on this issue at Monday's meeting, click HERE
Tweet
I put together a brief slide presentation on the issue. You can view the slide show by clicking on the link below, and also watch video of Monday's meeting.
My basic issue is whether it is necessary to raise our bills for trash pick up in these tough economic times.
I hope to hear more from all of you when this issue comes up in November.
To view my slide show, click HERE
To view my questions raised on this issue at Monday's meeting, click HERE
Tweet
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Every dollar counts!
Saving every dollar of your tax dollars is important.
At last night's City Council meeting, I pulled an item off the consent calendar dealing with approval of a revised contract for the company that provides software services and credit card processing for the City of San Mateo's Parks and Recreation Department for online registration of recreation programs such as swimming, dancing, art, etc.
Since 1995 the City of San Mateo has contracted with the company "Active Network" to provide the software to handle online registrations. The software "Active" provides has been user friendly, and the rate charged the City for the service has been reasonable.
Up until this year, the City of San Mateo handled the credit card processing for online registration in-house, utilizing the City's computers to process credit card transactions. However staff decided to make all our credit card information was as secure as possible, and to therefore allow Active to take over the collection and storage of credit card processing. It is a decision I fully support, and City staff are to be commended for their work.
However, in reviewing the staff report, I noticed two things:
1) Although the City has been loyal cutomers with Active since 1995, Active was asking for an increase of 25% in fee. This increase in fees means an additional $23,500 per year in fees for this service.
2) City staff did not open the new contract process to competitive bidding.
During my time on the Council, I have been consistent in my belief that an open bidding process is important because it not only ensures a quality product through solicitation of bids from a variety of companies, it also uses market forces to help drive down the cost of services. The result is savings of your tax dollars.
I am happy to report that based on my request, the Council voted to continue the matter to give time for staff to look into a competitive bidding process, while ensuring that the public is not adversely affected by any disruption to online registration of recreation services.
You will not read about it in the newspapers, and it won't be on the nightly television news. the amount of $23,500 may not even seem like a lot in the grand scheme of things. But if you saved $23,500 on ten contracts, you would save $235,000. It all adds up. And it took less than 10 minutes of Council meeting time to make sure we are spending your tax dollars wisely.
I will continue to advocate for responsible spending wherever possible.
To watch video of last night's meeting and the above item, click HERE and watch Item # 9.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Newsletter from San Mateo City Councilman David Lim - June 2011
Fighting to Stay Accountable for YOUR Tax Dollars, Balanced Budget, and Summer Fun
Dear David,It seemed like summer would never arrive, but as we head toward the July 4th weekend, warmer weather is finally starting to show up in San Mateo.
During the Spring, as your City Councilmember I was busy on a number of issues. I wanted to give you an update on what was accomplished, what still needs some work, and where we are headed into the summer and fall.
In this issue, read about:
- Fighting to Stay Accountable for YOUR Tax Dollars
- San Mateo's Balanced Budget
- Summer Fun in San Mateo
 Fighting to Stay Accountable For YOUR Tax Dollars Did you know that the San Mateo City Council is required to approve by public hearing all City expenditures over $100,000? All expenditures under $100,000 can be approved without Council approval by the City Manger or City Department Heads. In these tight economic times I thought it was time to review the $100,000 threshold. For example, in Fiscal Year 2009-10, there were over $9 million of city expenditures that were not directly approved by the City Council, but instead approved by City Staff. And while we have the most professional, ethical City Staff anywhere, I felt that the public had the right to have their elected officials approve all expenditures of their tax dollars over $25,000. That's why on April 4, I urged my colleagues on the City Council to consider lowering the threshold for City Council approval of all expenditures to $25,000. I am sorry to say that my request did not receive a majority of Council support to pass. But it has not deterred me from continuing to advocate for what I think is right. Thank you to the many of you who voiced support for this effort. I intend to bring up the issue again during next year's goal setting sessions. To view a copy of the report associated with the April 4 meeting on this issue, click HERE. |
| San Mateo's Balanced Budget On June 20, the City Council adopted a balanced budget for the City of San Mateo, as required under our City Charter. Our budget for the upcoming fiscal year 2011-12 includes an Operating Budget of $116.46 million, plus Capital Improvement Program of $6.80 million, for a total $123.26 million dollar budget. A gap between revenue and expenditures due to the continued downturn in our economy required closing a $7.9 million gap. The saving necessary to close this gap were filled with savings in budget management, employee cost reductions, capital project transfers, and department expenditure reductions for the upcoming year. Thanks to all of our City Staff who worked long and hard throughout the winter and spring to bring this budget in on time and on budget. A special thanks to our City Employees who made deep and often painful concessions in wages, benefits, and pension contributions to help the City balance it's budget. To view a report of the budget approved on June 20, click HERE. |
Music in the Park started June 23, and runs every Thursday night from 6-8 PM through August 11. Join your friends, family, and neighbors for a variety of great music, great food, and great fun in Central Park in San Mateo! For more information, click HERE.
Off the Grid, a collection of gourmet food trucks comes to Downtown San Mateo starting Monday, July 18. For those of you who only remember food trucks as greasy food served at construction sites, prepare to be surprised. For those of you who have experienced the innovative, high-end, and downright tasty offerings from the food trucks of the 21st century, come hungry! And be sure to save room for the delightful offerings served by our hundreds of other gourmet restaurants located throughout our Downtown! For more information, click HERE.
.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Returning Unnecessary Health Benefits Back to the City of San Mateo
This weekend, the San Mateo County Times ran an investigative piece into the use of health benefits for part-time elected officials. Below is a copy of the full article, including a quote from me at the end.
As a Councilmember who also has a full-time job as a Deputy District Attorney for the Alameda County District Attorney's Office, I consider myself very fortunate. I am blessed to be in a full-time job that provides me and my family with full health care benefits.
Therefore, as a Councilmember for San Mateo, I decline all health care coverage from the City, and furthermore return the $2,823 in yearly flexible benefit spending allocated to me. That $2,823 is converted back to City funds. Other than the $600 monthly salary paid for work as your Councilmember, I receive no other compensation or benefit from the City of San Mateo, or you, the taxpayers.
As your Councilmember, I continue to strive to be as financially prudent as possible without sacrificing the character and quality of our City.
********************************************
Several officials with multiple government positions double-dipped on health coverage, receiving two taxpayer-funded policies, the data show, and at one small school district in San Jose, the cost of health coverage provided to an elected official was more than four times higher than the cost of insurance provided to each rank-and-file employee.
"The only reason there isn't more outrage is that most people aren't aware of this," said Kris Vosburgh, executive director of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. "It amounts to a gift of public funds, a theft from taxpayers. That's what it comes down to."
The double-dippers include Contra Costa County Supervisor Federal Glover, whose health coverage at his county job cost taxpayers $15,439 and who took a second policy valued at $15,666 through his part-time job as a board member of the Delta Diablo Sanitation District in Pittsburg. Glover called the district's insurance "a standard offering" commonly available to part-time officials.
Some accepted coverage that cost far in excess of their part-time elected pay. One was Mt. Pleasant School Board member Gail Tremaine in San Jose, whose yearly gross salary was $2,880 and whose insurance cost the district $32,699. Teachers in that district, which has five schools, were limited last year to health coverage capped at $7,500.
Tremaine said her taxpayer-funded policy covered her and two children but declined to discuss the benefit further. The district also paid $23,396 in benefits to board President Darell Koide and $15,150 each to two other elected board members, figures exceeding coverage amounts of all the district's 271 employees except the superintendent, the data show.
"Board members have always received benefits, for about the last 30 years. They have a tradition of getting benefits," said district Superintendent George Perez. "It's the way it's always been."
A more limited version of the online database focusing on salaries has been published each of the past three years, but now taxpayers can see the full tally of what public employees cost, including how much agencies contribute toward employees' pensions, insurance and deferred compensation. Information for more than 250 government agencies in 10 counties in and around the Bay Area is available at ContraCosta-Times.com/salaries and InsideBayArea.com/salaries.
Free, taxpayer-funded health care plans are commonly offered to officials elected to part-time positions, the data show. The benefits have been handed out for years, although the public has been generally unaware because of a lack of disclosure of public employee compensation costs before a 2007 California Supreme Court ruling.
Some elected officials turned down coverage, but others took cash bonuses -- sometimes totaling more than $6,000 -- meant as incentives to encourage full-time workers to seek medical insurance elsewhere, the data show.
According to an annual survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation, only one in four private employers even offers health benefits to part-time employees. But in local government, it's a different story.
The awarding of such benefits when cities are in dire financial situations shows why local governments "are going the wrong way," said Modesto Mayor Jim Ridenour, president of the League of California Cities.
Health coverage, on principle, should be reserved for full-time government workers, he said.
"This is why we got some cities in trouble," Ridenour said. "It's not right."
Part-time elected officials "need to get paid something," he said, but, "I just don't agree that we should get health insurance, not unless it's a full-time job."
Ridenour doesn't receive city benefits, although his elected position is considered full time.
The average benefit cost for part-time officials, either a combination of as many as three policies -- medical, dental and vision -- or a cash payment in lieu of coverage, was $9,122. The average salary paid to elected officials serving on city councils, school boards and special districts in 2010 was $7,099
Sixty-one percent of cities that provided data either offered their elected officials health benefits or paid them cash to decline coverage in 2010. Cities offering coverage spent an average $8,508 per official on health benefits or cash payments in 2010, exceeding the average $8,037 provided in pay.
Forty-seven percent of responding school districts paid health coverage for elected officials or bonuses to decline coverage, costing taxpayers an average $8,795 each, more than twice the average $3,719 districts provided each in pay. And 38 percent of special districts that provide water, sewer, fire, transportation and other services gave elected officials medical insurance or waiver bonuses, at a similar cost.
As a Councilmember who also has a full-time job as a Deputy District Attorney for the Alameda County District Attorney's Office, I consider myself very fortunate. I am blessed to be in a full-time job that provides me and my family with full health care benefits.
Therefore, as a Councilmember for San Mateo, I decline all health care coverage from the City, and furthermore return the $2,823 in yearly flexible benefit spending allocated to me. That $2,823 is converted back to City funds. Other than the $600 monthly salary paid for work as your Councilmember, I receive no other compensation or benefit from the City of San Mateo, or you, the taxpayers.
As your Councilmember, I continue to strive to be as financially prudent as possible without sacrificing the character and quality of our City.
********************************************
Scores of elected officials receive free health care on taxpayers' dime
Posted: 04/24/2011 12:01:00 AM PDT
Hundreds of part-time elected officials throughout the Bay Area received full-time health care benefits in 2010 at taxpayer expense, with individual policies sometimes costing tens of thousands of dollars, according to government compensation data acquired by Bay Area News Group and published on its websites Sunday.
"The only reason there isn't more outrage is that most people aren't aware of this," said Kris Vosburgh, executive director of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. "It amounts to a gift of public funds, a theft from taxpayers. That's what it comes down to."
The double-dippers include Contra Costa County Supervisor Federal Glover, whose health coverage at his county job cost taxpayers $15,439 and who took a second policy valued at $15,666 through his part-time job as a board member of the Delta Diablo Sanitation District in Pittsburg. Glover called the district's insurance "a standard offering" commonly available to part-time officials.
Some accepted coverage that cost far in excess of their part-time elected pay. One was Mt. Pleasant School Board member Gail Tremaine in San Jose, whose yearly gross salary was $2,880 and whose insurance cost the district $32,699. Teachers in that district, which has five schools, were limited last year to health coverage capped at $7,500.
Tremaine said her taxpayer-funded policy covered her and two children but declined to discuss the benefit further. The district also paid $23,396 in benefits to board President Darell Koide and $15,150 each to two other elected board members, figures exceeding coverage amounts of all the district's 271 employees except the superintendent, the data show.
"Board members have always received benefits, for about the last 30 years. They have a tradition of getting benefits," said district Superintendent George Perez. "It's the way it's always been."
A more limited version of the online database focusing on salaries has been published each of the past three years, but now taxpayers can see the full tally of what public employees cost, including how much agencies contribute toward employees' pensions, insurance and deferred compensation. Information for more than 250 government agencies in 10 counties in and around the Bay Area is available at ContraCosta-Times.com/salaries and InsideBayArea.com/salaries.
Free, taxpayer-funded health care plans are commonly offered to officials elected to part-time positions, the data show. The benefits have been handed out for years, although the public has been generally unaware because of a lack of disclosure of public employee compensation costs before a 2007 California Supreme Court ruling.
Some elected officials turned down coverage, but others took cash bonuses -- sometimes totaling more than $6,000 -- meant as incentives to encourage full-time workers to seek medical insurance elsewhere, the data show.
According to an annual survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation, only one in four private employers even offers health benefits to part-time employees. But in local government, it's a different story.
The awarding of such benefits when cities are in dire financial situations shows why local governments "are going the wrong way," said Modesto Mayor Jim Ridenour, president of the League of California Cities.
Health coverage, on principle, should be reserved for full-time government workers, he said.
"This is why we got some cities in trouble," Ridenour said. "It's not right."
Part-time elected officials "need to get paid something," he said, but, "I just don't agree that we should get health insurance, not unless it's a full-time job."
Ridenour doesn't receive city benefits, although his elected position is considered full time.
A free benefit
The data show:
What's more, the benefits offered public officials often are more generous than those available from private employers, with officials contributing little if anything toward the premium cost. The expenses detailed in the database show only what governments paid to provide health insurance per official and do not include what any individual contributed toward their coverage. But officials interviewed for this story indicated they don't contribute much, if anything, toward their insurance premiums.
According to the Kaiser Family Foundation survey, covered employees nationally pay an average 18 percent of single and 29 percent of family health plan premiums, with three-quarters having co-payments, averaging $22, for doctor visits. Many workers also must pay deductibles, ranging from several hundred to several thousand dollars a year, on top of premiums and co-payments.
It's unclear how common it is nationally for employers to pay their workers who decline coverage. But Paul Fronstin, who studies health insurance for the nonprofit Employee Benefits Research Institute in Washington, D.C., believes few companies make such offers because it could actually increase their insurance costs or jeopardize coverage.
Employers keep premiums in check by guaranteeing a large pool of covered workers, he explained. Encouraging workers to decline coverage, he said, would result in a smaller, sicker pool of covered workers, raising the costs to insure them.
"If people opt out," Fronstin said, "it puts your plan in jeopardy."
The part-time official with the highest insurance cost found for last year was James Nejedly, a commissioner of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, whose policy covering him and three family members cost $35,636.
He said he was unaware of the policy cost until he learned Bay Area News Group was requesting compensation data.
"That's a large amount. I am the first person to say that number's totally out of whack. It's crazy," said Nejedly, a member of a prominent Contra Costa political family whose brother and sister also hold elected offices.
He said he will consider dropping the coverage or pushing policy changes to lower costs.
Glover -- whose publicly funded health benefits totaled $31,105 for his positions on the Delta Diablo Sanitation District and the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors -- said he used one policy for him and the other for his wife.
He began taking benefits from the sanitary district when he was appointed to its board in 1996 to represent Pittsburg. He started taking benefits from Contra Costa County when he was elected supervisor in 2000, but kept the sanitary district's benefits after he was again appointed to that board, this time as the county representative.
"This benefit is a standard offering and it is a system which was in place before my entry into public life. I must admit, when I was first elected to the (Pittsburg) City Council, I was surprised at its availability," Glover wrote in response to questions.
He said his wife will join the county's health insurance next year and he will drop the district's policy.
Antioch Mayor James Davis, who is also a Delta Diablo board member, took a health policy from the sanitary district that cost $21,444. He was also eligible for a health plan from Antioch. In a common practice, however, he declined full coverage from the city and took a $6,171 cash payment.
Those benefits were in addition to the $4,566 salary Davis received for sitting on the Delta Diablo board. The three-member body oversees the sanitary district, which employed 79 people last year and provides sewer service to Bay Point, Pittsburg and Antioch. The board meets once a month; its members are appointed.
All told, Davis -- who works full time as an executive with Bank of the West -- received $32,182 in taxpayer-funded compensation last year for his two government positions.
Davis said he declined the insurance coverage offered him at Bank of the West because the sanitary district's policy provided better care and cost him less out of pocket for prescriptions and other expenses. He said he viewed its Blue Shield insurance as compensation for his time.
"I am not trying to justify it," he said, "but I give up a lot of recreational time."
He said he uses vacation days to conduct board business, such as attending meetings out of state. "We put in a lot of hours." The Delta Diablo board's third member -- Pittsburg Mayor Nancy Parent -- did not take district benefits, according to the data.
As for Antioch, Davis said eliminating the city's policy of providing cash payouts to elected officials for declining coverage "is something we can consider."
"I get (cash) because I don't take the benefit," Kalinowski said. "It is what it is. I don't think there's a problem with it."
He said his total compensation from Antioch of $27,555 -- the combined figure of salary and all benefits -- "isn't off the charts."
Peralta College District trustee Nicholas Gonzalez Yuen took coverage through his elected position and an additional six months of coverage through his full-time job as a professor at the Foothill De Anza Community College District in Santa Clara County.
The six months of double coverage cost Foothill De Anza $7,064 and Peralta $23,320.
Gonzalez Yuen said he saw no problem in taking Peralta's benefits as a part-time elected trustee.
"It's fairly meager," he said of the elected position that paid him a salary of $11,040. All told, the Oakland college district spent $35,533 on Gonzalez Yuen in 2010, which includes medical coverage, pension contributions and other expenses, such as disability insurance.
"We need to be compensated in some other ways" beside salary, Gonzalez Yuen said, and health benefits is one of them. "We are ambassadors to the community."
San Rafael Mayor Albert Boro is another official who received double coverage. He took $14,198 in health coverage from his part-time city job and another insurance policy as a Golden Gate Bridge District
commissioner that cost $19,293, according to the data. He didn't return repeated phone calls to his home.
Some said they saw few options when it came to the dual benefits.
Concord Mayor Laura Hoffmeister, who works as assistant to the city manager of Clayton, received $7,603 for health coverage from Clayton, the data show, while Concord gave her $6,992 to decline its coverage.
"Certainly, it raises questions," Hoffmeister said. But she said that because elected officials are lumped in with regular city employees in the Concord payroll system, she only has two options: take the health coverage or decline it and get cash.
"It all comes in one check," she said. "If I didn't opt to take the waiver, I'd get the coverage." Concord's payroll system is set up so "you can't treat a segment of the employees differently," she said.
David Lim, who works full time for Alameda County and is a San Mateo council member, said he didn't know that San Mateo automatically spent $2,823 on a flexible medical spending account for him last year after he declined complete city health coverage. The unused money, he said, reverted to the city.
Lim defended the benefits, saying they serve as an incentive to encourage people to run for office.
"I think you should give health care to city council members," Lim said. "You want everyone to have the opportunity to run for office. I am a lawyer; I get benefits from my job. But what about someone who is self-employed? "... I don't know anybody who does this for the money."
Stanley Caldwell, an elected board member of the Mt. View Sanitary District in Martinez, said he would be "up the creek" without the health benefits he receives from that part-time job, a policy that cost taxpayers $12,781. Caldwell also sits on the board of the California Special Districts Association, an advocacy group, and said its data show that about half the officials who sit on district boards statewide take benefits.
Each government entity makes a decision to pay officials' benefits based on what it can afford, he said.
"I think it can be justified," said Caldwell, who is retired. "I put in a lot more time than I get compensated for."
According to the Kaiser Family Foundation survey, covered employees nationally pay an average 18 percent of single and 29 percent of family health plan premiums, with three-quarters having co-payments, averaging $22, for doctor visits. Many workers also must pay deductibles, ranging from several hundred to several thousand dollars a year, on top of premiums and co-payments.
It's unclear how common it is nationally for employers to pay their workers who decline coverage. But Paul Fronstin, who studies health insurance for the nonprofit Employee Benefits Research Institute in Washington, D.C., believes few companies make such offers because it could actually increase their insurance costs or jeopardize coverage.
Employers keep premiums in check by guaranteeing a large pool of covered workers, he explained. Encouraging workers to decline coverage, he said, would result in a smaller, sicker pool of covered workers, raising the costs to insure them.
"If people opt out," Fronstin said, "it puts your plan in jeopardy."
The part-time official with the highest insurance cost found for last year was James Nejedly, a commissioner of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, whose policy covering him and three family members cost $35,636.
He said he was unaware of the policy cost until he learned Bay Area News Group was requesting compensation data.
"That's a large amount. I am the first person to say that number's totally out of whack. It's crazy," said Nejedly, a member of a prominent Contra Costa political family whose brother and sister also hold elected offices.
He said he will consider dropping the coverage or pushing policy changes to lower costs.
Double-dippers
The data also revealed that some part-time elected officials who work full time for other government entities take health insurance from both.
He began taking benefits from the sanitary district when he was appointed to its board in 1996 to represent Pittsburg. He started taking benefits from Contra Costa County when he was elected supervisor in 2000, but kept the sanitary district's benefits after he was again appointed to that board, this time as the county representative.
"This benefit is a standard offering and it is a system which was in place before my entry into public life. I must admit, when I was first elected to the (Pittsburg) City Council, I was surprised at its availability," Glover wrote in response to questions.
He said his wife will join the county's health insurance next year and he will drop the district's policy.
Antioch Mayor James Davis, who is also a Delta Diablo board member, took a health policy from the sanitary district that cost $21,444. He was also eligible for a health plan from Antioch. In a common practice, however, he declined full coverage from the city and took a $6,171 cash payment.
Those benefits were in addition to the $4,566 salary Davis received for sitting on the Delta Diablo board. The three-member body oversees the sanitary district, which employed 79 people last year and provides sewer service to Bay Point, Pittsburg and Antioch. The board meets once a month; its members are appointed.
All told, Davis -- who works full time as an executive with Bank of the West -- received $32,182 in taxpayer-funded compensation last year for his two government positions.
Davis said he declined the insurance coverage offered him at Bank of the West because the sanitary district's policy provided better care and cost him less out of pocket for prescriptions and other expenses. He said he viewed its Blue Shield insurance as compensation for his time.
"I am not trying to justify it," he said, "but I give up a lot of recreational time."
He said he uses vacation days to conduct board business, such as attending meetings out of state. "We put in a lot of hours." The Delta Diablo board's third member -- Pittsburg Mayor Nancy Parent -- did not take district benefits, according to the data.
As for Antioch, Davis said eliminating the city's policy of providing cash payouts to elected officials for declining coverage "is something we can consider."
'Meager' compensation
Another member of the Antioch City Council, Brian Kalinowski, also took cash -- $6,090 -- in 2010 for declining the city's health coverage. For his job as a Contra Costa County sheriff's lieutenant, the county paid $15,422 in insurance costs for him last year, data show.
He said his total compensation from Antioch of $27,555 -- the combined figure of salary and all benefits -- "isn't off the charts."
Peralta College District trustee Nicholas Gonzalez Yuen took coverage through his elected position and an additional six months of coverage through his full-time job as a professor at the Foothill De Anza Community College District in Santa Clara County.
The six months of double coverage cost Foothill De Anza $7,064 and Peralta $23,320.
Gonzalez Yuen said he saw no problem in taking Peralta's benefits as a part-time elected trustee.
"It's fairly meager," he said of the elected position that paid him a salary of $11,040. All told, the Oakland college district spent $35,533 on Gonzalez Yuen in 2010, which includes medical coverage, pension contributions and other expenses, such as disability insurance.
"We need to be compensated in some other ways" beside salary, Gonzalez Yuen said, and health benefits is one of them. "We are ambassadors to the community."
San Rafael Mayor Albert Boro is another official who received double coverage. He took $14,198 in health coverage from his part-time city job and another insurance policy as a Golden Gate Bridge District
commissioner that cost $19,293, according to the data. He didn't return repeated phone calls to his home.
Some said they saw few options when it came to the dual benefits.
Concord Mayor Laura Hoffmeister, who works as assistant to the city manager of Clayton, received $7,603 for health coverage from Clayton, the data show, while Concord gave her $6,992 to decline its coverage.
"Certainly, it raises questions," Hoffmeister said. But she said that because elected officials are lumped in with regular city employees in the Concord payroll system, she only has two options: take the health coverage or decline it and get cash.
"It all comes in one check," she said. "If I didn't opt to take the waiver, I'd get the coverage." Concord's payroll system is set up so "you can't treat a segment of the employees differently," she said.
David Lim, who works full time for Alameda County and is a San Mateo council member, said he didn't know that San Mateo automatically spent $2,823 on a flexible medical spending account for him last year after he declined complete city health coverage. The unused money, he said, reverted to the city.
Lim defended the benefits, saying they serve as an incentive to encourage people to run for office.
"I think you should give health care to city council members," Lim said. "You want everyone to have the opportunity to run for office. I am a lawyer; I get benefits from my job. But what about someone who is self-employed? "... I don't know anybody who does this for the money."
Stanley Caldwell, an elected board member of the Mt. View Sanitary District in Martinez, said he would be "up the creek" without the health benefits he receives from that part-time job, a policy that cost taxpayers $12,781. Caldwell also sits on the board of the California Special Districts Association, an advocacy group, and said its data show that about half the officials who sit on district boards statewide take benefits.
Each government entity makes a decision to pay officials' benefits based on what it can afford, he said.
"I think it can be justified," said Caldwell, who is retired. "I put in a lot more time than I get compensated for."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)