Marina Bay Neighborhood Council

Celebrations to Honor Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Red Cross CPR Video

Watch a video on YouTube that could save a life — learn Hands-Only [Compression Only] CPR:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-Yqk5cHXsko

9/22 Email from Sgt. Opdyke

NOTICE: Bay Trail Closure information

Click here to see map and when the Bay Trail will be closed for commencement of work on the Trail Rehabilitation project. Remember to use the back arrow to return to this page.

CERT/REACT Training Dates

The fall session of REACT/CERT training will be held in Sept. and Oct. Classes will be held at the West Contra Costa Adult Education, Serra Campus, located at 6028 Ralston Avenue in Richmond. 

Please spread the word to your family, friends and neighbors. 

Schedule – WCCAE Course # 0909001

Class 1: Wed., Sept. 7, 2011 from 6:30 pm – 9:00 pm

Class 2: Wed., Sept. 14, 2011 from 6:30 pm – 9:00 pm

Class 3: Wed., Sept. 21, 2011 from 6:30 pm – 9:00 

Class 4: Wed., Sept. 28, 2011 from 6:30 pm – 9:00 pm

Class 5: Wed., Oct. 5, 2011 from 6:30 pm – 9:00 pm

Class 6: Wed., Oct. 12, 2011 from 6:30 pm – 9:00 pm

Class 7: Wed., Oct. 19, 2011 from 6:30 pm – 9:00 pm

Class 8: Wed., Oct. 26, 2011 from 6:30 pm – 9:00 pm

 

Final Drill: Saturday, October 29, 2011 from 8:30 am – 5:00 pm** (location: RFD Training Center , 3506 Cutting Blvd).

There is a $10 fee to cover the use of the facility. You can register in person at the Serra School, 6028 Ralston Avenue. They accept cash or check only and their office hours are Monday-Thursday, 8am-9pm or Friday 8am-12p. The school does not provide refunds. For more information about the program, please visit www.ci.richmond.ca.us/cert.

Thank you for your interest in this valuable, life-saving training.

Catherine Selkirk
Administrative Aide

Richmond Fire Department

Office of Emergency Services

440 Civic Center Plaza

Richmond, CA 94804

Office: (510) 620-6866

Fax: (510) 307-8048

catherine_selkirk@ci.richmond.ca.us

Carbon Monoxide Detectors Required 7/1/11

Read this link regarding the CO Legislation passed in the last session of the California Legislature (photos here show a combo smoke & CO alarm needing hardwiring and has a battery backup, and one that is just for CO detection; see note at bottom of page):

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0151-0200/sb_183_bill_20100507_chaptered.pdf

SEC. 3. Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 13260) is added to Part 2 of Division 12 of the Health and Safety Code, to read:
Chapter 8. Carbon Monoxide Poisoning Prevention Act of 2010….

17926. (a) An owner of a dwelling unit intended for human occupancy shall install a carbon monoxide device, approved and listed by the State Fire Marshal pursuant to Section 13263, in each existing dwelling unit having a fossil fuel burning heater or appliance, fireplace, or an attached garage, within the earliest applicable time period as follows:  (1) For all existing single-family dwelling units intended for human occupancy on or before July 1, 2011.  (2) For all other existing dwelling units intended for human occupancy on or before January 1, 2013.  (b) With respect to the number and placement of carbon monoxide devices, an owner shall install the devices in a manner consistent with building standards applicable to new construction for the relevant type of occupancy or with the manufacturer’s instructions, if it is technically feasible to do so.  (c) (1) Notwithstanding Section 17995, and except as provided in paragraph (2), a violation of this section is an infraction punishable by a maximum fine of two hundred dollars ($200) for each offense.  (2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a property owner shall receive a 30-day notice to correct. If an owner receiving notice fails to correct within that time period, the owner may be assessed the fine pursuant to paragraph (2).  (d) No transfer of title shall be invalidated on the basis of a failure to comply with this section, and the exclusive remedy for the failure to comply with this section is an award of actual damages not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100), exclusive of any court costs and attorney’s fees. This subdivision is not intended to affect any duties, rights, or remedies otherwise available at law.  (e) A local ordinance requiring carbon monoxide devices may be enacted or amended if the ordinance is consistent with this chapter.

SEC. 5. Section 17926.1 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read:
17926.1. (a) An owner or owner’s agent of a dwelling unit intended for human occupancy who rents or leases the dwelling unit to a tenant shall maintain carbon monoxide devices in that dwelling unit consistent with this section and Section 17926.  (b) An owner or the owner’s agent may enter any dwelling unit intended for human occupancy owned by the owner for the purpose of installing, repairing, testing, and maintaining carbon monoxide devices required by this section, pursuant to the authority and requirements of Section 1954 of the Civil Code.  (c) The carbon monoxide device shall be operable at the time that the tenant takes possession. A tenant shall be responsible for notifying the owner or owner’s agent if the tenant becomes aware of an inoperable or deficient carbon monoxide device within his or her unit. The owner or owner’s agent shall correct any reported deficiencies or inoperabilities in the carbon monoxide device and shall not be in violation of this section for a deficient or inoperable carbon monoxide device when he or she has not received notice of the deficiency or inoperability.  (d) This section shall not affect any rights which the parties may have under any other provision of law because of the presence or absence of a carbon monoxide device.  (e) For purposes of this section, with respect to a time-share project, ‘owner’ means the homeowners’ association of the time-share project.

SEC. 6. Section 17926.2 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read:
17926.2. (a) If the department, in consultation with the State Fire Marshal, determines that a sufficient amount of tested and approved carbon monoxide devices are not available to property owners to meet the requirements of the Carbon Monoxide Poisoning Prevention Act of 2009 and Sections 17926 and 17926.1, the department may suspend enforcement of the requirements of Sections 17926 and 17926.1 for up to six months. If the department elects to suspend enforcement of these requirements, the department shall notify the Secretary of State of its decision and shall post a public notice that describes its findings and decision on the departmental Internet Web site.  (b) If the California Building Standards Commission adopts or updates building standards relating to carbon monoxide devices, the owner or owner’s agent, who has installed a carbon monoxide device as required by Section 17926 or 17926.1, shall not be required to install a new device meeting the requirements of those building standards within an individual dwelling unit until the owner makes application for a permit for alterations, repairs, or additions to that dwelling unit, the cost of which will exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000).

NOTE: regarding photo for combo alarm shown at top of this page: when the alarm goes off, it speaks to you and tells you if it is a smoke or CO alarm; large test/reset button is easily activated; the ‘operate’ rectangular LED is lit green when the unit is operating.

East Brother Light Station

Check out http://ebls.org/ for information about a very special place in our wonderful part of the Bay.

Richmond’s famed historic island lighthouse is a non-profit operation and depends on income from guests to pay for ongoing repair and maintenance. Although occupancy is up substantially from the 2008-2009 depths of the recession, more visitors are needed to generate the dollars for several capital projects, including a new copper roof for the lantern gallery, completion of painting started last summer, electrical work and roof repairs.

Volunteers are also needed constantly to paint, garden, work on historic machinery and assist with marketing and fundraising. Click here to find out more and register as a volunteer.

Plastic Bag Ban in the works for our City

Richmond is one step closer to banning plastic bags.

By: Robert Rogers<http://richmondconfidential.org/author/robertrogers/> | June 9, 2011 – 4:06 pm |

Filed Under: Economy<http://richmondconfidential.org/category/economy/>, Environment<http://richmondconfidential.org/category/environment/>, Featured<http://richmondconfidential.org/category/featured/>, Front<http://richmondconfidential.org/category/front/>, Government<http://richmondconfidential.org/category/government/>

Richmond is ready to ban the bags, and it’s put a deadline on neighboring cities to join its quest.

“We’ve been working on this for a couple years,” said Councilman Tom Butt, one of the city’s staunchest proponents of an ordinance that would ban the use of plastic bags at local grocers. “I’d just like to get on with it.”

Butt’s comments were in response to a report by city staff assessing the still-uncertain prospects that a half-dozen other Contra Costa County cities will join Richmond in banning single-use plastic bags and imposing a five-cent fee on paper bags. (Read the city’s staff report here: City report<http://richmondconfidential.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/cityreport.pdf>).

At Tuesday’s meeting, the City Council voted 6-1 in favor of a resolution urging the West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority to fund a regional environmental impact report (EIR) on banning single-use plastic bags.

One sticking point is the report, which is required for the ordinance because a political group called the “Save the Plastic Bag Coalition”<http://www.savetheplasticbag.com/> challenged the ordinance in court, according to Councilman Jeff Ritterman.  The group is collection of businesses and plastics manufacturers that formed in 2008.

Hiring a firm to produce the EIR would cost $57,940, according to a city report, a cost that Richmond leaders want to share with other cities in the area. “What this is about is funding the EIR,” Butt said. Richmond has considered the plastic bag ban for several years. In recent months, local agency workers have held community meetings to inform and draw feedback from residents and business owners. Reception to the proposed ban has been mixed, particularly among area merchants.

City officials conducted a survey earlier this year with officials from the 23rd Street Merchants’ Association, the Chamber of Commerce and other business groups. Of 18 surveys completed, 12 local businesses were opposed and six in favor of a plastic bag ban, according to a city report.
Councilman Nat Bates, whose political support is particularly strong with Richmond’s growing business community, was the lone vote against Tuesday’s resolution.

At least 13 cities and counties statewide have banned plastic bags since 2007, according to the city report, and seven have coupled the ban with a fee on the use of paper bags. The ordinances are designed to incentivize the use of cloth and other reusable bags at grocery and drug stores.

Hercules, Pinole, San Pablo and El Cerrito have all expressed interest in a similar ordinance and are in various stages of feasibility studies, but no city has definitively declared that it will ban the bags. (Read this related feasibility study: Bag report<http://richmondconfidential.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/bagreport.pdf>)

The moves at the local level follow a failed attempt to ban plastic bags by California state legislators last year.  Assemblywoman Julia Brownley (D-Santa Monica) wrote the failed bill.

Richmond City Manager Bill Lindsay suggested that the council attach a 60-day deadline for other cities to sign onto the program in order to ease Butt’s concerns that the process was becoming too prolonged. A ban on plastic bags would be another step in Richmond’s push to become a hub of environmentally friendly policies. Last year, the city passed a polystyrene ban that prohibited styrofoam takeout food packaging, requiring that all food-to-go must be packaged with biodegradable or compostable alternatives.

While support was overwhelming, it wasn’t unanimous. In addition to Bates’ vote against the resolution, Councilman Corky Booze [pronounced boo-zay] said he was concerned about increasing costs on shoppers with fixed incomes. “If we don’t get an exemption for my seniors, I don’t know if I will be voting [for the ban],” Booze said.

California state legislators attempted a retail plastic bag ban last year. Assemblywoman Julia Brownley wrote AB 1988 to ban single-use plastic bags. The bill failed, which meant many cities like Richmond that were waiting to see the outcome opted to take action on their own terms.

Richmond Mayor Gayle McLaughlin expressed confidence that a coalition of nearby cities would form, but vowed that Richmond was prepared to go it alone. In recent weeks, McLaughlin has repeatedly stated that the city is moving in the direction of becoming a premiere “green city,” raising its profile at the state and national level. “Cities are copying us all over,” McLaughlin said.

Our City Manager

Read this great article about Bill Lindsay…”The Man Behind Richmond’s Renaissance”
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/ebx/the-man-behind-richmonds-renaissance/Content?oid=2647128

County Costa County Budget Update

From an email sent by County Supervisor John Gioia, www.cocobos.org/gioia:

Today we are adopting the county budget. I wanted to send out an Op Ed that I wrote which recently appeared in the Contra Costa Times that addresses our financial challenges.  As always, I look forward to any thoughts you have.

——————————

The Board of Supervisors will soon be approving the county’s annual general fund budget of $1.2 billion. Unfortunately, this budget will cut important public safety and health and human services. 

Three main factors have contributed to our budget crisis: declining property tax revenues, increasing employee compensation and benefit costs, and a dysfunctional state-local fiscal relationship. 

After years of steadily rising property values, the real estate market crashed in 2007-08 and Contra Costa’s average home values have fallen 53% since then. Property tax revenue growth was roughly 8-10% per year during the boom. Since 2008-09, cumulative property tax revenue has declined nearly 11%. Compounding this problem, the county’s pension fund lost 26.5% of its market value in 2008. 

Economists do not predict a major rebound in property tax revenues. We are most likely facing flat or minimal increases in revenues over the next few years. 

Public safety (Sheriff, DA, Fire and Probation) has been hit especially hard by the revenue decline.  Additionally, we’ve had decreases in state funding for human services such as child care, foster care,  child welfare and senior services at a time when demand for these services is growing. 

While revenues have gone down, total employee compensation costs continue to grow. The single largest factor contributing to rising compensation costs is the county’s increasing pension contribution for its employees. 

Under state law, public agencies are obligated to make up for pension investment losses by increasing their payments into the fund.   This is the major component of what is called our “unfunded liability.” Our pension costs are increasing by $29.2 million annually to a total of $249 million per year, mostly to make up for the 2008 market decline.

Pension costs could increase by another $29 million annually by 2015, even if the pension fund meets its targeted 7.75% annual investment return. There is no doubt that increasing pension costs will seriously impair the county’s ability to provide services at the expected and necessary level. If we want to maintain public safety and protect our safety net of health, children’s and senior services, we need to address pension costs immediately. 

Our hard working public employees deserve fair and reasonable compensation without unduly burdening taxpayers. Taxpayers are entitled to needed services and expect public agencies to spend their money efficiently.

Most labor contracts with our unions expire this June. This presents a major opportunity to work with our employees to make our compensation and benefit costs more sustainable. For example, we can immediately save up to $17 million per year if we work with our unions to change the employer-employee cost share for pensions. Also, developing a fair yet less expensive benefit tier for new employees will save us hundreds of millions of dollars over the long term.

In our last labor negotiations, most of our employee unions stepped forward and agreed to pay more towards their current and retiree healthcare thus saving the county hundreds of millions of dollars over the next 30 years. In addition, most county employees have not received a cost of living increase since 2008 and have sacrificed through furloughs and temporary salary cuts. 

County employees have shown a willingness to be partners in addressing our financial challenges. It’s vital that we continue this partnership to address soaring pension costs and minimize future service cuts.

Sincerely,

John Gioia

Supervisor, District One

Contra Costa County

11780 San Pablo Ave. Ste D

El Cerrito, CA 94530

Phone: 510-374-3231

Fax: 510-374-3429

 

Copyright © 2012 Marina Bay Neighborhood Council. Clean Simple White Theme by Mazznoer. Powered by WordPress.