Taken from Wal Marts website:
Last Modified: Friday, November 14, 2008
Real Estate
As of August 2008, Wal-Mart's presence in California includes:
Supercenters: 33
Discount Stores: 139
Neighborhood Markets: 0
Sam's Clubs: 36
Distribution Centers: 7
Average store size (national average)
Supercenter: 185,000 sq. ft. with approx. 142,000 items
Discount Store: 101,000 sq. ft. with approx. 120,000 items
Neighborhood Market: 41,000 sq. ft. with approx. 29,000 items
Sam's Club: 130,000 sq. ft. with approx. 5,500 items
People
As of November 2008, the total number of Wal-Mart associates in California is 73,776.
The average wage for regular, full-time hourly associates in California is $11.43 per hour (Wal-Mart Discount Stores, Supercenters, and Neighborhood Markets). Additionally, associates are eligible for performance-based bonuses.
In recent years, Wal-Mart has contributed four percent of an associate's eligible pay to their combined Profit Sharing and 401(k) Plan.
Suppliers
In FYE 2008, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc spent $26,667,718,003.00 for merchandise and services with 3,743 suppliers in the state of California. As a result of Wal-Mart's relationship with these suppliers, Wal-Mart supports 249,175 supplier jobs in the state of California.
Supplier figures provided by Dun & Bradstreet.
Taxes and Fees
Wal-Mart collected on behalf of the state of California more than $831.5 million in sales taxes in FYE 2008.
Wal-Mart paid more than $147.4 million in state and local taxes in the state of California in FYE 2008.
Community Involvement
In 2007, Wal-Mart Stores and Sam's Club gave $16,739,615.00 in cash and in-kind donations to local causes and organizations in the communities they serve in the state of California. Through additional funds raised through stores and Clubs throughout the state, Wal-Mart contributed and raised a grand total of $21,563,229.00 as a result of its presence in California.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
More on Sanders
Reaction from WMAT in response to Jim Sanders' recent activity:
When a sitting City Council member takes tens of thousands of dollars
in donations from wealthy developer interests, things can get pretty
messy! I'm sure there's more dots to connect; see attached for
Sanders' campaign filings if you want to find some yourself. Here are
two examples.
Doug Fluetsch and EDAC
1. Doug Fluetsch's group, the Citizens for the Betterment of Merced
County, donated at least $3,500 to Sanders' campaign for Supervisor.
2. Fluetsch was one of three people to apply for an open seat on the
city's Economic Development Advisory Committee (attached). Fluetsch
writes under "community-related activities" that he is "involved in
supporting the Wal-Mart D.C." and acts as chair of something called
the Merced County Jobs Coalition, which, according to the County
Chamber's newsletter, is a "committee.. .supporting such projects as
the Wal-Mart Distribution Center."
3. Sanders nominates Fluetsch for EDAC and is the only Councilmember
to vote for Fluetsch in the final 6-1 vote for Paul Lundberg of
Atwater Baptist Church.
Brookfield Castle
In Sanders' campaign filings, you'll see a $500 donation from
Brookfield Castle, LLC.
Brookfield Castle, LLC wants to develop Castle Farms into a giant
residential development between Merced and Atwater (Brookfield is part
of an international real estate conglomerate based partly in Roseville
and Del Mar). Brookfield previously donated tens of thousands of
dollars to Measures A and G, which would have raised taxpayer money to
pay for the Atwater-Merced Expressway, which would service Castle
Farms at build-out. Brookfield also gave a $1.5 million loan to MCAG
to pay for Expressway expenses, which MCAG paid back in April '07
after paying interest at the rate of $10,000/month.
As part of its General Plan update, the City is considering whether to
include Castle Farms in the City's sphere of influence, and eventually
negotiate things like sewer and water hook-ups. When the City
discusses its updated General Plan and finalizes its Sphere of
Influence, will Sanders disclose the donation from Brookfield he
received in his campaign for Supervisor?
When a sitting City Council member takes tens of thousands of dollars
in donations from wealthy developer interests, things can get pretty
messy! I'm sure there's more dots to connect; see attached for
Sanders' campaign filings if you want to find some yourself. Here are
two examples.
Doug Fluetsch and EDAC
1. Doug Fluetsch's group, the Citizens for the Betterment of Merced
County, donated at least $3,500 to Sanders' campaign for Supervisor.
2. Fluetsch was one of three people to apply for an open seat on the
city's Economic Development Advisory Committee (attached). Fluetsch
writes under "community-related activities" that he is "involved in
supporting the Wal-Mart D.C." and acts as chair of something called
the Merced County Jobs Coalition, which, according to the County
Chamber's newsletter, is a "committee.. .supporting such projects as
the Wal-Mart Distribution Center."
3. Sanders nominates Fluetsch for EDAC and is the only Councilmember
to vote for Fluetsch in the final 6-1 vote for Paul Lundberg of
Atwater Baptist Church.
Brookfield Castle
In Sanders' campaign filings, you'll see a $500 donation from
Brookfield Castle, LLC.
Brookfield Castle, LLC wants to develop Castle Farms into a giant
residential development between Merced and Atwater (Brookfield is part
of an international real estate conglomerate based partly in Roseville
and Del Mar). Brookfield previously donated tens of thousands of
dollars to Measures A and G, which would have raised taxpayer money to
pay for the Atwater-Merced Expressway, which would service Castle
Farms at build-out. Brookfield also gave a $1.5 million loan to MCAG
to pay for Expressway expenses, which MCAG paid back in April '07
after paying interest at the rate of $10,000/month.
As part of its General Plan update, the City is considering whether to
include Castle Farms in the City's sphere of influence, and eventually
negotiate things like sewer and water hook-ups. When the City
discusses its updated General Plan and finalizes its Sphere of
Influence, will Sanders disclose the donation from Brookfield he
received in his campaign for Supervisor?
Sanders tries to help Financial Backer
Merced Councilman Jim Sanders tried to appoint to a city economic committee a donor connected to his supervisor campaign without disclosing the ties -- a move a public advocacy group called "troubling."
Sanders, who lost to Hub Walsh last week, asked that the City Council appoint Doug Fluetsch, with Fluetsch and Busby Insurance, to the vacancy on the Economic Development Advisory Committee.
The 11-member group advises the City Council, Redevelopment Agency and staff on business matters. The motion failed, with only Sanders supporting him on the final vote.
Instead, Paul Lundberg, a minister with Atwater Baptist Church, was appointed to the eight-year term.
While Sanders didn't break any political disclosure laws because he would have had no direct financial gain had the appointment succeeded, an open-government group official said it's more evidence that elections should be funded with public money.
Sanders said he discussed financial contributions with the city attorney and believes there isn't a conflict, which is why he didn't mention it during the Nov. 3 meeting.
"I'm usually fairly conscientious about that stuff," he explained. "I believe people need to know where support comes from."
At the same meeting, Sanders made a point of stating that he lives near the G Street underpass that's going to be built. He asked City Attorney Greg Diaz whether he should recuse himself from a vote. It wasn't necessary, Diaz said.
Fluetsch is a major donor to Citizens for the Betterment of Merced County, a political action committee that endorsed Sanders and gave $2,583 to his campaign and another $3,750 worth in signs.
From the beginning of the year to June, Fluetsch donated $600 to the political action committee, records show.
While Sanders' vote for Fluetsch doesn't violate any political campaign rules, it still highlights a system in which donors may appear to get special favors, said Derek Cressman, the Western states regional director of Common Cause, a nonpartisan nonprofit accountability group.
"It's a blurry line between donating and buying access," he explained. "It casts doubts on the merit of the appointment."
It's unusual for politicians to point out their dealings with campaign donors, he said. They're only required to file disclosure reports listing contributions, which Sanders did.
Leaders aiming for public office look to their friends for financial support and often turn to them to fill some appointed positions, he said. "It's certainly the way the game is played," he added.
Cities and counties should adopt public financing of elections so there aren't any questions about paybacks, he said.
Sanders has known Fluetsch for years through the Rotary Club and because Fluetsch's business provides insurance to Sanders' nonprofit, the Merced Community Action Network.
Sanders said he's also supported Fluetsch's bids for other committees. He noted he didn't receive any contributions in his bid for Board of Supervisors from the Lyons family, which owned the land where Wal-Mart wants to build a distribution center.
That, he said, would be a donation he'd feel compelled to note before voting on the controversial project.
Sanders, who lost to Hub Walsh last week, asked that the City Council appoint Doug Fluetsch, with Fluetsch and Busby Insurance, to the vacancy on the Economic Development Advisory Committee.
The 11-member group advises the City Council, Redevelopment Agency and staff on business matters. The motion failed, with only Sanders supporting him on the final vote.
Instead, Paul Lundberg, a minister with Atwater Baptist Church, was appointed to the eight-year term.
While Sanders didn't break any political disclosure laws because he would have had no direct financial gain had the appointment succeeded, an open-government group official said it's more evidence that elections should be funded with public money.
Sanders said he discussed financial contributions with the city attorney and believes there isn't a conflict, which is why he didn't mention it during the Nov. 3 meeting.
"I'm usually fairly conscientious about that stuff," he explained. "I believe people need to know where support comes from."
At the same meeting, Sanders made a point of stating that he lives near the G Street underpass that's going to be built. He asked City Attorney Greg Diaz whether he should recuse himself from a vote. It wasn't necessary, Diaz said.
Fluetsch is a major donor to Citizens for the Betterment of Merced County, a political action committee that endorsed Sanders and gave $2,583 to his campaign and another $3,750 worth in signs.
From the beginning of the year to June, Fluetsch donated $600 to the political action committee, records show.
While Sanders' vote for Fluetsch doesn't violate any political campaign rules, it still highlights a system in which donors may appear to get special favors, said Derek Cressman, the Western states regional director of Common Cause, a nonpartisan nonprofit accountability group.
"It's a blurry line between donating and buying access," he explained. "It casts doubts on the merit of the appointment."
It's unusual for politicians to point out their dealings with campaign donors, he said. They're only required to file disclosure reports listing contributions, which Sanders did.
Leaders aiming for public office look to their friends for financial support and often turn to them to fill some appointed positions, he said. "It's certainly the way the game is played," he added.
Cities and counties should adopt public financing of elections so there aren't any questions about paybacks, he said.
Sanders has known Fluetsch for years through the Rotary Club and because Fluetsch's business provides insurance to Sanders' nonprofit, the Merced Community Action Network.
Sanders said he's also supported Fluetsch's bids for other committees. He noted he didn't receive any contributions in his bid for Board of Supervisors from the Lyons family, which owned the land where Wal-Mart wants to build a distribution center.
That, he said, would be a donation he'd feel compelled to note before voting on the controversial project.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
The Proposed Underpass
from Saturdays Sun Star
City will map out underpass work Monday
By SCOTT JASON
sjason@mercedsun-star.com
Merced's City Council, in broad brush strokes, will paint a picture Monday night of how it wants the G Street underpass designed.
The finer points of the project will be shaded in during the coming year.
The council will meet 5:30 p.m. Monday for a public workshop on the $18 million project that's been one of the city's top goals for years.
The city, with $9 million from the state, will build an underpass so traffic can go below the train tracks even if a locomotive is barreling through town. An average of 70 trains go across the northern set of tracks.
Work is scheduled to begin in 2010 and end in 2011. Residents are fretting about what'll happen in between those dates and in the years to come.
In the short-term, construction will inconvenience people and tax nearby streets. In the long run, G Street will likely see more traffic as residents use it to avoid train delays.
The city has been meeting with area schools and neighbors to find solutions to their concerns, acting Development Services Director David Gonsalves said.
He declined to discuss any plans that have been discussed. "We're still getting input," he said. "We have a year to work (the details) out."
The council is faced with three main choices as the long-awaited project moves forward.
First, should G Street at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway crossing be closed during construction, expected to last about 18 months?
If the street's closed, it means the 31,000 daily car trips across that section of G Street will be using M and R streets to move north and south in Merced.
For an extra $2 million to $3 million, the city could build a detour. It would tack an extra six months on the project. G Street would only be closed for six months.
Some businesses worry that the closure could hurt their bottom line.
Second, how should Santa Fe Drive, just north of the train tracks, connect to G Street?
The city can close the street entirely and turn it into a cul-de-sac. It's the cheapest option, at $40,000, but it'll increase traffic on nearby streets as residents leave their homes. On average, there are about 2,800 car trips daily on that part of the road.
The city can keep the road connected to G Street in two ways.
It can get rid of some garage access and buy a section of land. That option would cost about $600,000.
It could curve the road to the south, keep garage access and still buy a chunk of land. It'd cost $400,000.
The cost of buying the land is not included in those estimated costs of the other construction.
Both options suggest low to moderate impacts on traffic because left turns from Santa Fe Drive to G Street wouldn't be allowed for safety reasons. Right turns would be allowed.
Third, the council must decide how West 23rd, 24th and 25th streets should connect to G Street. According to the city engineer, 23rd Street can stay connected with only right turns. However, West 24th and 25th need to be closed and turned into cul-de-sacs.
It's possible that West 25th Street could stay open for emergency vehicles.
During an informational meeting last week, residents worried about how the project would keep taxing Merced's main roads as the city grows northward. Many vocal residents consider the underpass a temporary fix to a much larger problem.
Quieter residents filled out comment cards praising the city for moving forward on the projects. The two groups have a middle ground:
They'd rather not wait for a train to pass.
Reporter Scott Jason can be reached at (209) 385-2453 or sjason@mercedsun-star.com.
City will map out underpass work Monday
By SCOTT JASON
sjason@mercedsun-star.com
Merced's City Council, in broad brush strokes, will paint a picture Monday night of how it wants the G Street underpass designed.
The finer points of the project will be shaded in during the coming year.
The council will meet 5:30 p.m. Monday for a public workshop on the $18 million project that's been one of the city's top goals for years.
The city, with $9 million from the state, will build an underpass so traffic can go below the train tracks even if a locomotive is barreling through town. An average of 70 trains go across the northern set of tracks.
Work is scheduled to begin in 2010 and end in 2011. Residents are fretting about what'll happen in between those dates and in the years to come.
In the short-term, construction will inconvenience people and tax nearby streets. In the long run, G Street will likely see more traffic as residents use it to avoid train delays.
The city has been meeting with area schools and neighbors to find solutions to their concerns, acting Development Services Director David Gonsalves said.
He declined to discuss any plans that have been discussed. "We're still getting input," he said. "We have a year to work (the details) out."
The council is faced with three main choices as the long-awaited project moves forward.
First, should G Street at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway crossing be closed during construction, expected to last about 18 months?
If the street's closed, it means the 31,000 daily car trips across that section of G Street will be using M and R streets to move north and south in Merced.
For an extra $2 million to $3 million, the city could build a detour. It would tack an extra six months on the project. G Street would only be closed for six months.
Some businesses worry that the closure could hurt their bottom line.
Second, how should Santa Fe Drive, just north of the train tracks, connect to G Street?
The city can close the street entirely and turn it into a cul-de-sac. It's the cheapest option, at $40,000, but it'll increase traffic on nearby streets as residents leave their homes. On average, there are about 2,800 car trips daily on that part of the road.
The city can keep the road connected to G Street in two ways.
It can get rid of some garage access and buy a section of land. That option would cost about $600,000.
It could curve the road to the south, keep garage access and still buy a chunk of land. It'd cost $400,000.
The cost of buying the land is not included in those estimated costs of the other construction.
Both options suggest low to moderate impacts on traffic because left turns from Santa Fe Drive to G Street wouldn't be allowed for safety reasons. Right turns would be allowed.
Third, the council must decide how West 23rd, 24th and 25th streets should connect to G Street. According to the city engineer, 23rd Street can stay connected with only right turns. However, West 24th and 25th need to be closed and turned into cul-de-sacs.
It's possible that West 25th Street could stay open for emergency vehicles.
During an informational meeting last week, residents worried about how the project would keep taxing Merced's main roads as the city grows northward. Many vocal residents consider the underpass a temporary fix to a much larger problem.
Quieter residents filled out comment cards praising the city for moving forward on the projects. The two groups have a middle ground:
They'd rather not wait for a train to pass.
Reporter Scott Jason can be reached at (209) 385-2453 or sjason@mercedsun-star.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
