Readers decry the $200 million water park proposal at Bonfante
Gardens and the city administrator bristles at an editorial
Looming Big Developer Disaster Would Ruin Our ‘Jewel’ – Gilroy Gardens
Dear Editor,
I am writing to implore the city to stay on their course for buying Gilroy Gardens and not to be lured with the dangling carrots the big developer is offering.
Yesterday I took a day tour of 6 Flaggs Park with an IBM group. We had only been to the park once since it moved to Vallejo. We were shocked at the chaos. It took us 40 minutes to get into the park by tram.
Once in there it was difficult to get around. We saw one docent in the five hours. we were there.
Speaking as a docent at Gilroy Gardens since day one of the opening, I realize how much new people coming into a park appreciate the information and time a docent spends with them. We really had to wing it in this park. It was loud, dirty, overly crowded and the animals did not look happy in their environment.
My suggestion to the powers who be, who might be making this decision about Gilroy Gardens, is to take a trip up to 6 Flaggs on a weekend and I’m sure you will be relieved to get back to our Gilroy park.
It’s a refreshing jewel that I have heard so many people from out of town comment on the pure beauty of it. I won’t even go in to the comments that I’ve heard from out of towners regarding the parks down south.
Please stay on course and keep this park as it should be, the jewel of Gilroy.
Pat Schneider, Gilroy
Don’t Blame City Budget Woes on ‘Pay Adjustments’ for the 42 Managers
Dear Editor,
In the June 21 Dispatch another editorial was written on the City of Gilroy’s exempt group pay adjustments and the timing of its presentation to City Council.
These issues, unfortunately, are one of the most misunderstood issues that have been reported in the paper. I refer you to my April 27 letter to the editor for a detailed review of the issues, but let’s try to further simplify it.
All that occurred was that every job classification in the exempt group went through a market analysis to ensure that the pay for these jobs was competitive with our surrounding cities. This is the same type of analysis that occurred with the police and fire unions during their latest meet and confer processes.
The Miscellaneous Group (referred to in your editorial as non-management city workers) had the exact survey done for their job classes in 2001, which led to numerous adjustments in 2002 and 2003.
The reason that we do this is that it is absolutely vital for all of our employee groups’ compensation to be competitive, so we can hire and retain the best talent available.
By being competitive we can continue to provide the high levels of service our citizens have come to expect. The last review of the exempt group’s job classifications was in early 2000. Therefore, the bottom line is the exempt group was simply the last in line of all our labor groups for this periodic review and corresponding adjustments.
The second issue that came up in the editorial was the timing of the exempt group’s pay plan approval being presented to City Council during this year’s budget review process.
The facts are that the City Council has been actively dealing with the General Fund gap problem since 2002, so this is not a new issue to them. The Council has been fully aware that there was a gap problem, and has been diligently working with staff over the last four budget years to improve the situation. As a matter of fact, and this as been reported in the Dispatch, the gap problem has been steadily improving every year since 2002.
So the key issue for Council and city staff is to balance employee compensation with the strains of the ever increasing demands of city services.
Since 2002, the fire, police and miscellaneous unions have, at least once, negotiated agreements with the city of Gilroy.
Again, the exempt group was the last in line. To continually point to this group of 42 dedicated city employees as the problem to the city’s financial situation is way off base.
Jay Baksa, City Administrator
