|
Napa risks bankruptcy unless pensions, benefits reduced
Grand jury report critical of city, county post-employee benefits packages
Share
Email
Print
CommentThe city and county of Napa could risk bankruptcy if they do not reduce their generous pensions and post-employment benefits, according to a report by the Napa County Grand Jury.
In order to avoid a fiscal situation like that of Vallejo, which recently filed for bankruptcy, the grand jury said Napa County and the city of Napa must reduce the escalating costs of employee benefits.
In order to avoid a fiscal situation like that of Vallejo, which recently filed for bankruptcy, the grand jury said Napa County and the city of Napa must reduce the escalating costs of employee benefits.
The grand jury report also cites a conflict of interest on the part of the Napa County Board of Supervisors and Napa City Council, who are involved in compensation negotiations from which they directly benefit.
According to the report, the city of Napa and Napa County pay 80 percent and 54 percent of their annual budgets respectively for wages and benefits.
According to the report, the city of Napa and Napa County pay 80 percent and 54 percent of their annual budgets respectively for wages and benefits.
The total cost to Napa County taxpayers for county employee benefits over the next two years will be more than $39 million, the report concluded. The estimated cost to fund city employees’ pension benefits is $44 million over the next six years.
The city of Napa has a budget of $60 million for 2008, and the Napa County budget for 2008 is $247 million.
The city of Napa has a budget of $60 million for 2008, and the Napa County budget for 2008 is $247 million.
“This commitment significantly impacts the services that can be provided by these local governmental agencies,” the report said.
And these costs continue to rise, the grand jury found. The current annual cost to provide medical benefits to retired employees, for example, is $1.4 million, a more than six-fold increase since 2002.
The grand jury cites a $3.9 million funding gap for the city of Napa during the fiscal year 2007-2008, and $3.7 million for 2008-2009, as examples of the cost impact of employee benefits on other governmental services.
Cuts being considered by the city, for example, could range from the elimination of police positions to a reduction in economic development, D.A.R.E. and library hours, according to the report.
“The grand jury sees two basic problems that need to be addressed to avoid replicating the financial situation in Vallejo,” the report said.
When the Vallejo crisis reached its peak, city of Napa officials said they believe the city is in a much better place.
City Manager Mike Parness acknowledged that retirement and public safety costs are high in both cities. But he added that city revenues exceeded expectations last year, and that the area’s tourist-based economy has weathered the current economic turbulence fairly well.
Carole Wilson, Napa’s finance director, said in March the city has a $7 million operating reserve and is increasing funds to pay for the long-term medical costs of retirees.
“This is a good cushion,” Wilson said of the $7 million operating reserve. “Vallejo drained off every last dollar” of its reserves, she said.
Napa County has also managed its finances and obligations more predictably and safely than did Vallejo.
Steps to take
First, the grand jury recommended, the city and county must reduce costly pensions and post-employee benefits, which continue to balloon exponentially. Second, they must address the problem of mounting unfunded liability for both pensions and retiree health benefits.
The report cites Napa County’s unfunded liability of $52.5 million for pension benefits and $34 million for health care.
The city of Napa has an unfunded pension liability of $49 million and $2.8 million for health care, according to the report.
“This liability will continue to grow and if left unchecked can adversely impact the financial integrity and borrowing ability of the county and the city,” the report said.
As baby boomers retire, the cost to taxpayers will continue to increase, said the report. There are currently 322 retired Napa County employees, according to the report, and the county estimates that another 273 will retire in the next 10 years; there are currently 318 retired city of Napa employees, and the city estimates that another 54 will retire within the next five years.
To allay these costs, the grand jury recommends that both the county and the city switch from a defined-benefit plan for pension benefits to a defined-contribution plan for new employees, thereby reducing the benefits they provide.
“Surveys disclose that on average, the governmental agencies pay more in wages and salaries than the private sector but have not correspondingly reduced their pensions and other benefits,” the grand jury wrote.
Further, the grand jury recommends that the county and city work with unions to reduce the terms of pension plans which allow employees to retire well before age 65 at a high percentage of their salaries.
The grand jury also criticized the city and county for their methods of negotiation.
While the report acknowledges that elected officials’ involvement in benefit negotiations is legally permissible, the grand jury claims it is a conflict of interest for those who negotiate and ultimately approve agreements with unions to benefit from those same negotiations.
The Grand Jury recommends that the county retain an outside agency to advise on wages and benefits for the Napa County Board of Supervisors.
“Otherwise, conflict of interest concerns will cloud virtually every wage and benefit action taken by the Napa County Board of Supervisors,” the report stated.
As with the county, the report recommends the city contract with an outside entity to advice on wages and benefits for the Napa City Council.
The city and the county, like all agencies studied by the grand jury, must offer a formal response to the findings in the coming months.
And these costs continue to rise, the grand jury found. The current annual cost to provide medical benefits to retired employees, for example, is $1.4 million, a more than six-fold increase since 2002.
The grand jury cites a $3.9 million funding gap for the city of Napa during the fiscal year 2007-2008, and $3.7 million for 2008-2009, as examples of the cost impact of employee benefits on other governmental services.
Cuts being considered by the city, for example, could range from the elimination of police positions to a reduction in economic development, D.A.R.E. and library hours, according to the report.
“The grand jury sees two basic problems that need to be addressed to avoid replicating the financial situation in Vallejo,” the report said.
When the Vallejo crisis reached its peak, city of Napa officials said they believe the city is in a much better place.
City Manager Mike Parness acknowledged that retirement and public safety costs are high in both cities. But he added that city revenues exceeded expectations last year, and that the area’s tourist-based economy has weathered the current economic turbulence fairly well.
Carole Wilson, Napa’s finance director, said in March the city has a $7 million operating reserve and is increasing funds to pay for the long-term medical costs of retirees.
“This is a good cushion,” Wilson said of the $7 million operating reserve. “Vallejo drained off every last dollar” of its reserves, she said.
Napa County has also managed its finances and obligations more predictably and safely than did Vallejo.
Steps to take
First, the grand jury recommended, the city and county must reduce costly pensions and post-employee benefits, which continue to balloon exponentially. Second, they must address the problem of mounting unfunded liability for both pensions and retiree health benefits.
The report cites Napa County’s unfunded liability of $52.5 million for pension benefits and $34 million for health care.
The city of Napa has an unfunded pension liability of $49 million and $2.8 million for health care, according to the report.
“This liability will continue to grow and if left unchecked can adversely impact the financial integrity and borrowing ability of the county and the city,” the report said.
As baby boomers retire, the cost to taxpayers will continue to increase, said the report. There are currently 322 retired Napa County employees, according to the report, and the county estimates that another 273 will retire in the next 10 years; there are currently 318 retired city of Napa employees, and the city estimates that another 54 will retire within the next five years.
To allay these costs, the grand jury recommends that both the county and the city switch from a defined-benefit plan for pension benefits to a defined-contribution plan for new employees, thereby reducing the benefits they provide.
“Surveys disclose that on average, the governmental agencies pay more in wages and salaries than the private sector but have not correspondingly reduced their pensions and other benefits,” the grand jury wrote.
Further, the grand jury recommends that the county and city work with unions to reduce the terms of pension plans which allow employees to retire well before age 65 at a high percentage of their salaries.
The grand jury also criticized the city and county for their methods of negotiation.
While the report acknowledges that elected officials’ involvement in benefit negotiations is legally permissible, the grand jury claims it is a conflict of interest for those who negotiate and ultimately approve agreements with unions to benefit from those same negotiations.
The Grand Jury recommends that the county retain an outside agency to advise on wages and benefits for the Napa County Board of Supervisors.
“Otherwise, conflict of interest concerns will cloud virtually every wage and benefit action taken by the Napa County Board of Supervisors,” the report stated.
As with the county, the report recommends the city contract with an outside entity to advice on wages and benefits for the Napa City Council.
The city and the county, like all agencies studied by the grand jury, must offer a formal response to the findings in the coming months.
Join the conversation
Comment guidelines
All comments will be screened and may take several hours to be posted.
• Keep comments clear, concise and focused on the topic in the story.
• Comments exceeding 300 words will not be posted.
• Refrain from personal attacks, degrading comments or remarks that do not add to a constructive dialogue.
• Comments implying suspects in crime-related stories are guilty before they have been proven so in a court of law will be deleted.
• Do not post e-mail addresses or links except for pages on Napavalleyregister.com or government Web sites.
• Comments will not be edited - they will be approved or declined.
• Comments may be used in the print edition of the newspaper.
• If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact dross@napanews.com or bkennedy@napanews.com
For further information on the comment guidelines, click here.
|
|
AmcanResident wrote on Jun 29, 2008 1:38 PM:
vonhelga wrote on Jun 29, 2008 3:39 PM:
Dwayne wrote on Jun 29, 2008 4:15 PM:
Just another reason this country is headed down the tubes. "
mofosheee wrote on Jun 29, 2008 4:21 PM:
WARNING: Leave the working class tax payers alone. This is not their fault.
My pension will not be touched and I will fight to acquire even more benefits "
mofosheee wrote on Jun 29, 2008 4:35 PM:
THAT Napa failed to recognize or address largely because of; incompetence, greed and short term gain.
Way to go City of Napa! "
ADark1 wrote on Jun 29, 2008 5:59 PM:
HEH!
Wouldn't put it past them. My q is then, Can we write off any improvements to our streets that the city in its infinite wisdom cannot or will not supply?
IF I PAY someone to give me a REAL sidewalk ( which btw will stop the weeds)can I charge a TOLL? Or at the VERY LEAST, get a yearly tax credit to do what the city won't?
Perhaps the Grand Jury needs to investigate a few MORE things as far as the way THIS lovely little burg is being run! "
musikluvr wrote on Jun 29, 2008 8:43 PM:
Napa_Native wrote on Jun 29, 2008 9:48 PM:
The challenge is to get any of the elected officials to even consider the idea. "
saneta wrote on Jun 29, 2008 10:37 PM:
Straight Talk wrote on Jun 29, 2008 10:55 PM:
You write: "Each of them [elected officials] should be required to pay their portion of these costs based upon the amount of time they have been in office since 2000."
Okay. I took office in May 2005. So, according to you, I would pay for 3.5 years? And yet, the contracts you discuss were approved just two years ago and were following requirements imposed by councilmembers who have long since left office.
You ask why the city council haa not reported on these issues. I think we do. Each two year budget cycle there is a public budget process. You should drop in sometime. I don't recall hearing anyone say the police and firefighters should not be paid so much.
The city council has a meeting on Tuesday, July 1st. Please, come on down. Public speaking opportunities are at 3:30 pm and 6:30 pm. I'll look for you and others who fee the same way to speak at the podium so we can hear your point of view.
I'm not being sarcastic. I really want to see you there and hear what you have to say. Please just don't blame the "city council" as a whole for problems that we are trying to resolve. Some of us inherited those issues and its unfair, untrue or uninformed of you to imply otherwise.
Mark van Gorder "
vonhelga wrote on Jun 29, 2008 10:58 PM:
jimmie wrote on Jun 30, 2008 12:03 AM:
you blast the whole wine industry as arrogant and seem to feel pretty entitled yourself. If you ask me, THAT's the problem. And guess what, everyone, the wine industry IS the working class around here and you oughtta count your blessings. Got any other bright ideas? Any other industries look good to you in this economy and in these times?
It would be great to see you take up Mark Van Gorder's ("Straight Talk") invitation to participate in the process instead of whining on the sidelines. "
asahigo wrote on Jun 30, 2008 12:56 AM:
raybo wrote on Jun 30, 2008 1:03 AM:
Gimmeabreak wrote on Jun 30, 2008 3:01 AM:
vanappan wrote on Jun 30, 2008 7:27 AM:
Anyone know a consultant they could hire, as I am sure they do. "
Napa Mom wrote on Jun 30, 2008 7:34 AM:
bloodagar wrote on Jun 30, 2008 7:58 AM:
First of all, you are getting quite a lot of dissent right here...why don't YOU take this information and do something about it.
Many of us cannot make it to these meetings ...but this is a public forum that you are an active participant in. You have an elitist tone to your comments, I don't particularly like this.
Many people in this forum are desperately hard working people who have a commute that leaves us getting home at 7-8 p.m. each night...so we use this 300 word comment space to be heard. The only way some people can be informed is right here.
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. " Jefferson "
skippert wrote on Jun 30, 2008 7:58 AM:
napadad wrote on Jun 30, 2008 8:13 AM:
napan007 wrote on Jun 30, 2008 8:37 AM:
Baraki wrote on Jun 30, 2008 9:25 AM:
GetReal! wrote on Jun 30, 2008 10:17 AM:
GetReal! wrote on Jun 30, 2008 10:21 AM:
abouttime wrote on Jun 30, 2008 10:35 AM:
Yes, we have made bad deals, we have made deals that are to rich. However this is not a local problem. This is a state wide problem and will take courage on the part of State Government to solve.
We are blessed that we have a strong economy. That we have the wine industry and the tourism and hospitality industry to cushion us. You all need to learn what you are talking about before you spout off in this useless way. "
Dwayne wrote on Jun 30, 2008 10:49 AM:
Demo Cracy wrote on Jun 30, 2008 10:55 AM:
Sickothis wrote on Jun 30, 2008 11:07 AM:
Sickothis wrote on Jun 30, 2008 11:09 AM:
Sickothis wrote on Jun 30, 2008 11:12 AM:
antipc wrote on Jun 30, 2008 11:21 AM:
The same government that created the problem will not be able to solve it. They do not know how to spend within their means. I can assure you this will get worse at all levels. The liberal mindset is coming home to roost. "
cordell wrote on Jun 30, 2008 11:36 AM:
vocal-de-local wrote on Jun 30, 2008 11:37 AM:
Maybe, just maybe. the problem here is that a big piece of the money pie is in the hands of a wealthy few who invest it in ways that further protect their assets but not necessarily in ways that are good for a local economy. Maybe that portion of the pie is getting bigger and we now have too much money in the hands of too few. It's probably better when smaller portions of money are distributed to a larger portion of people because they will be more likely to spend their money locally. The wealthy do these things too but it's the difference between people who desire to protect their assets and those who actually spend their resources on remodeling projects and purchases at the local hardware store etc. Perhaps people who make over a certain % of money should pay higher taxes and not be allowed tax write offs. This might redistribute money back into the hands of the middle class. And let's be realistic here. Many of those who work in government are middle class people, including the paper shufflers. Is it better to have a hundred paper shufflers or four very wealthy people who shuffle their paper money elsewhere?
Maybe all of those vacation homes in Napa County should be charged a higher tax rate as well. Those homes are empty much of the year and the people are not living in them and making a contribution to local spending. Just a thought.
And yes, address the underground economy. "
Cadence wrote on Jun 30, 2008 11:39 AM:
And then Vallejo went bankrupt.
Honest question: what IS the downside of a municipal bankruptcy?
I know we citizens are expected to file BK if we can't pay gigantic health care bills.
What's different here? "
jwk wrote on Jun 30, 2008 11:46 AM:
bloodagar wrote on Jun 30, 2008 11:53 AM:
vocal-de-local wrote on Jun 30, 2008 11:59 AM:
What appeared at first like an asset to the community, (cheap labor for the agricultural industry) has become quite a large financial burden to the middle class. Responsibility is transferred from businesses who profit from cheap labor to those who carry the burden of paying taxes. And then all of those middle class people begin carrying so much burden on their backs that they decrease their own local spending. And of course, instead of addressing the root of the problem with the local economy, we are going after the very people who carry the biggest burden; the middle class, the paper shufflers etc. Government workers are not the real problem. It's the inappropriate distribution of money. "
reason-ator wrote on Jun 30, 2008 12:11 PM:
But the same 'burying the head in the sand' and waiting to let future elected officials take the blame for their present-day mismanagement of roads and labor contracts/pensions is also selfish, self-centered, and the root of why our system of electing officials who can't do the right thing because they're too concerned about getting re-elected is what gets us into these holes.
It isn'the budget that's broke. It's our system of 'electing' managers who aren't responsible for the damage they cause by un-management. "
skeptic wrote on Jun 30, 2008 12:32 PM:
sickothis wrote on Jun 30, 2008 12:35 PM:
sickothis wrote on Jun 30, 2008 12:41 PM:
by Napa Superior Court Judges. County Ordinance No. 1263 dated June 14, 2005 "
Straight Talk wrote on Jun 30, 2008 1:06 PM:
I work full-time in direct wine sales. I have two children and often get home after they are asleep. I consider my service on the city council volunteer time to help improve our community. The reason I read all these comments is exactly as bloodagar says, "to take this information and do something about it." I do just that. Using Webster's definition, I'm about as un-elitist (is that a word?) as I could imagine.
I understand many people cannot attend the meetings. I want readers to know when the meetings are in case they can attend and also to remind people that there are two times people can talk to their city council about anything under "public comment", which generally is 3:30 and 6:30 pm - typically (though not always) the first and third Tuesday of the month.
To reason-ator - how is it arrogant of me to suggest people reading these comments come to a public meeting? The meetings are not at my place of work. I work in St. Helena. And I can assure you the hours are not convenient for me. I'd love it if all meetings started at 5:30 pm. I have to leave work half an hour to an hour early everytime the council meets. I'm not complaining... but please don't say it's "convenient" for me or my family. That's unfair.
I'm not attacking anyone writing here. Just offering my perspective and have always encouraged more, not less, public participation. I think this space the Register provides for public input is an excellent service to our community. ~ MvG "
reason-ator wrote on Jun 30, 2008 1:12 PM:
I didn't get to vote on the issues of present management- I just get asked to vote for the multi-million dollar bonds to correct prior mis-management, or if you prefer, mis-Supervisering or mis-Councilmembering. "
sickothis wrote on Jun 30, 2008 1:29 PM:
sickothis wrote on Jun 30, 2008 1:34 PM:
Napa Mom wrote on Jun 30, 2008 1:34 PM:
Listening wrote on Jun 30, 2008 2:00 PM:
reason-ator wrote on Jun 30, 2008 2:39 PM:
To Straight Talk, I said it "sounds almost" arrogant to me. I know it's not. But I would not begin to suggest that if you couldn't come to my residence or place of business at a convenient time for me and an inconvenient time for you to discuss it that you have no interest in my opinion. And thanks for your service. "
sickothis wrote on Jun 30, 2008 3:05 PM:
kkjp wrote on Jun 30, 2008 3:06 PM:
I'm not saying they are wrong or that they are right. I'm just not willing to accept this report on face value without learning more. "
napaao wrote on Jun 30, 2008 3:07 PM:
bubble wrote on Jun 30, 2008 3:08 PM:
Reasonator, if it is inconvenient to go to a city council meeting, here are some suggestions for you. Pick up the phone and call the city council members - they all have voice mail at 257-9503. Leave them a message stating your concerns. If that doesn't work for you, send them an email or a letter. It's easy, and probably more constructive than complaining on this blog. "
sickothis wrote on Jun 30, 2008 3:13 PM:
musikluvr wrote on Jun 30, 2008 3:43 PM:
reason-ator wrote on Jun 30, 2008 3:45 PM:
I'm not sure if the number you gave me is the same number I've used in the past, but I think I can recall three times when I've called and left messages for councilmembers or supervisors. I got no responses, so I figured it was kind of useless. But that was in the past, and maybe things are different now.
Believe me, I've got plenty more things to say that I'm not posting on these blogs because I'm trying to be proper and civil. For instance, I have more questions for Straight Talk, but the man has been good enough to 'talk' to us here, and doesn't deserve to see my questions in this forum where they could be mis-construed or interpreted as being more negative towards him than I intend them to be. "
John Richards wrote on Jun 30, 2008 5:30 PM:
John Richards wrote on Jun 30, 2008 5:58 PM:
Grits wrote on Jun 30, 2008 6:26 PM:
the Napa County Sheriff's Dept., and the Superior Court, just to name a few. At no time did I ever witness any employee gold bricking. As a matter of fact, all employees were diligently working - HARD! - for (as it was put to me so many times) "the comunity we serve". These hard working, dedicated individuals (many of whom commute in because they can not afford to live in & breathe the rarified air of the Napa Valley) earn every penny & benefit they receive. "
missmarvelous wrote on Jun 30, 2008 6:29 PM:
Maybe Vallejo would not be such a "junk town" if fair counties such as Napa would supply housing to meet the needs of section 8 and affordable housing. Your county has been sued many times and is required by law to build over 3500 units of affordable to low end come housing. We in Vallejo and Solano County are frankly tired of supplying the housing to your immigrant workers and other low income people, its time to pick up your own slack and be accountable to poor people of your county. For years Vallejo has been the dumping ground for cities and counties who do not want to address their poor, not to mention what do with parolees (the dirty secret is out!) The cost of housing the poor out weighs any compensation our city receives from section 8 vouchers. There is no need to denagrade another city when talking about what is wrong with your own, just help be part of the solution and get it on! "
nappanutt wrote on Jun 30, 2008 6:42 PM:
Rocketman wrote on Jun 30, 2008 7:01 PM:
Vallejo's probllem in their problem. Napa is not Vallejo. Napa is moving in the right direction, keeping revenues strong and making employee contracts competative.
I love how all these people seem to know the issues and don't! They have no idea how to run a City but are the first to complain. I'm sure that some of these folks even voted you into office.
The grand Jury did a disservice in their reporting. Napa has given benefits like Vallejo, so they will end up the same way. Give me a break!!
Emotion and lack of background at its finest. Grand Jury, you didn't do your home work!! "
ADark1 wrote on Jun 30, 2008 7:39 PM:
1. Generate new revenue.
2. Work on a better fiscal responsibility...NO! this is NOT a "Liberal" or "Conservative" deal, this is a NAPA deal!
3.Here are a few hints, hotels charge over 200.00 a day...will 10 cents or 50 make that much of a difference in the pockets of those who can afford it?
4.WHY can't we RECYCLE those wine bottles and get revenue?
5.Ok so the Supreme Court allows shipping to other states, what's a few more pennies even though they have to pay sales tax? We are WORLD CLASS! or aren't we?
I humbly suggest ...instead of wasting time pointing fingers, we do something about it..or, I'll be drinking while Napa burns..
~Picks up first glass of the day! "
jwk wrote on Jun 30, 2008 7:47 PM:
napablogger wrote on Jun 30, 2008 8:02 PM:
I am also going to be following the impact of this grand jury report, and following up with the government. The GJ report was a very good one and very accurate, and I plan to write about it on my blog this week.
I don't think any one is talking about taking away pensions from those who already have them. You can't legally anyway, it is considered private property. Also no one is talking about laying off people, we need more in the City of Napa, not less.
We do need to slow down the rate of increase in pay, not cut pay, but slow down the rate of increase. Skeptic is basically right, but they get raises above the rate of inflation, or have for some time now while the private sector is not keeping up with inflation for most workers. That is economically unsustainable.
And whoever mentioned Harry Martin is exactly right. He championed the binding arbitration that has made things more difficult for the current city council to negotiate with the employee unions.
But the voters put that in place, so while you are passing around blame don't forget yourselves, the voters. "
napablogger wrote on Jun 30, 2008 9:30 PM:
Because benefits written into union contracts allow for various things to add up to medical being paid after retirement, 8 hours of sick leave accrued and not taken mean one paid month of medical for some employees, etc.
If you only work two or three days a week, and therefore manage to put all your doctors appts on your off days, and you get what are called Kelly days where if you do get sick you can take essentially a comp day instead of a sick day, you can save all your sick days for years.
Ergo, you end up with the county having to pay $5.9 million a year for 14 years, or about $82 million, just to catch up with the cost of all that "employee paid" medical care.
And you could not have possibly worked for either the city or county for the last ten years without getting significant raises. I have seen all the raises in that time period and they are not only substantial, they are more than the average Napan in private industry has gotten, by a lot. "
HE wrote on Jun 30, 2008 10:32 PM:
Musikluvr: your assumptions about Mark van Gorder are just that: assumptions. Many of your sentences directed at Mark Van Gorder start with "you expect....
For example, you state about Van Gorder that "you casually expect the people of Napa to come along in a couple years and somehow pay for this huge unfunded liability for employee benefits which you are hiding off the books. You expect the taxpayers to raise taxes to pay for road and sidewalk maintenance you are neglecting that has been traditionally paid for by the city for 150 years. You expect to skip the liability for you careless votes."
Unless you have talked to him directly, I would guess that these are inflammatory assumptions on your part.
How do you know what he expects? Haven't we all learned what happens when we assume?
Because he bothered to post a few comments here (and bravely say who he is) he should be attacked?
I would expect (but would never guess that you'd do it) is that you would put your name behind your vitreole.
I am going to assume that you won't. "
Explorer wrote on Jul 1, 2008 10:28 AM:
" Every business or entity, private or public, must expend 80% (at least) of its budget for salary & benefits (Economics 101). "
I studied theoretical economics at UCLA and this makes absolutely no sense.
I would appreciate it if you backed up this assertion with a solid reference. If you can't, you are not contributing to the discussion by making up numbers.
As a business owner in Napa with 12 employees, I can state that my company does not spend 80% of it's budget on salaries and benefits. "
musikluvr wrote on Jul 1, 2008 11:36 AM:
glenroy wrote on Jul 1, 2008 4:15 PM:
Businesses provide a product or service, in exchange for a fee determined by a competitive market, if they fail they go out of business…when government fails they simply raise fees and continue as if they‘re providing something in exchange…not withstanding the fact that there are many outstanding, hardworking, dedicated and effective people who work in local government, at all levels. In California, local governments were originally set up to operate within the limits of the local property tax revenue after mandated expenses…then some wise guy figured out the public was hostage to whatever fees the government could squeeze out over and above property taxes, ever since government has grown at inexcusable rates. The only effective means to measurement government efficiency is measured by the number of people it serves…anything else is jingo.
Our State government, since 1970 has grown over 2,300% while the population has grown just 225%…most ‘run of the mill business owners’ will tell you that equates to a problem. Locally, in fairness to those tasked with finding ways to fund mandated programs, our economic mess is the byproduct of electing people above them who have never managed a real business, having never met a payroll out of their own pocket…when you peel away the façade about all most of them know is how to get elected….or just another Presidential Candidate. "
Raven wrote on Jul 2, 2008 10:00 AM:
glenroy, I would be interested in knowing where you got your figures....a quick check of the census bureau shows the state's population has grown from 19,953,000 in 1970 to 36,553, 218 at the latest estimate, almost doubling but not 225 percent by my math....as for state employees, the first data I found, again from the census bureau, shows a jump from 321,860 employees in 1992 (the earliest data I could find with a quick search) to 474,660 in 2007, a jump of about 47 percent if I did my math right....and anyone feel free to correct my math, it was never my strongest subject. "
jonqcitizen wrote on Jul 2, 2008 4:07 PM:
As far as i can tell, Kelly days are related to the FLSA and firefighter schedules for the most part. Since the county has no fire department (contracts with the state) then they have no unfunded liability in regards to the fire department. In addition, I have not heard that the county uses "Kelly" days anywhere in the organization. Explain therefore how Kelly days are driving up the cost of retiree medical in the County of Napa. "
freeport56 wrote on Jul 2, 2008 5:14 PM:
Time to fire all electeds, ax collective barining, and start from scratch. Who gets 109% of their salary at retirtement. Oh, by the way from grits's comments he never took business economics! "
jonqcitizen wrote on Jul 2, 2008 8:15 PM:
"Who gets 109% of their salary at retirtement."
The answer to that question? Nobody in this county. Check your facts instead of listening to what other people repeat endlessly. "
hudds5 wrote on Jul 2, 2008 10:33 PM:
skeptic wrote on Jul 3, 2008 8:56 PM:
jonqcitizen wrote on Jul 3, 2008 10:38 PM:
we could raise the money we collect on fines about 10% if we got rid of those special license plates whose only use is to evade tickets, fines and tolls .nearly a million people have them in california, all government employees and their families .
Wow, can't believe the stuff that peolple will say on this website. Let's see the facts. Show me where these special license plates are, I want one. LOL "
skeptic wrote on Jul 4, 2008 7:56 AM:
napablogger wrote on Jul 4, 2008 9:47 AM:
Many safety and other employees manage to save most of their sick time up to get medical paid for after they retire, often for long periods of time.
We end up with multi millions of expense somehow, right? You don't get a bill for $82 million in retiree post employment benefits by not giving post employment benefits. That is just the county number.
And there are some former safety employees who got 109% of their salaries on retirement. I could name some names but that wouldn't be fair to them, or relevant. The fact that the system even allows that is the problem. "
freeport56 wrote on Jul 5, 2008 12:16 PM:
subscribe to the "Napa Valley Taxpayers Association's" newsletters. The research is well above par and actually comes from city, county, and state sources.
When I see a fire batallion chief driving a $120,000.00 mercedes with a custom plate identifying him, i know where my tax money is going. "
freeport56 wrote on Jul 5, 2008 12:27 PM:
The political philosophy in Sacramento for the last ten years is a major deterent to California's citizens. If we want real change, we will have to change out our legislators for more business backgrounds and less attorneys. "
skeptic wrote on Jul 5, 2008 8:50 PM:
jonqcitizen wrote on Jul 5, 2008 9:24 PM:
1) you may have MEANT to say that applied to the city of napa, although it seems unlikely since you used the county's liability, but the fact is you used a city situation combined with a county figure to make your point.
'Ergo, you end up with the county having to pay $5.9 million a year for 14 years, or about $82 million, just to catch up with the cost of all that "employee paid" medical care.
2) You also state that the 82 million is only attributable to retiree medical costs. Again, this is not true, that is a combination of the medical costs and pension costs. I am beginning to wonder if you are more interested in furthering your agenda than speaking clearly about the actual facts. And BTW, employees also contribute to their pension costs.
3) PERS does not allow someone to retire at 109% of their income. Period. If you are combining other sources than PERS, you should say so.
I am beginning to notice a pattern here. "
jonqcitizen wrote on Jul 5, 2008 9:26 PM:
PS: Including the names of the people who receive 109% of their salary is completely relevant, but I agree it is not fair to invade their privacy. "
jonqcitizen wrote on Jul 5, 2008 10:09 PM:
I read the article, and it's too bad it was not accurately reported by you in your blog. Once again, someone is exaggerating the facts in order to further their own agenda.
1) Their are no special license plates. The DMV maintains the home addresses of peace officers and others in sensitive positions in confidential status to protect them from retaliation. However it does provide whatever agency, or department that person works for. It also says that they could collect the money if they wanted to, but don't want to go through the effort of sending a bill to the employing agency.
2) Nowhere does it say they can earn an additional 10% in revenue. In fact it says that these are a fraction of the tolls that cross daily. It does say that over the past five years, they lost 29,500 in tolls, which could add up to 5 million, IF they added all the extra fines. Not likely. If you have some other source that shows that as 10% show me.
3) The article also states that some of the people they named contacted the toll authority and found that the charges of toll evasion were mistaken. So how many of the 29,500 is actual and how much is mistaken?
Which leaves me with one thought. Your agenda please? "
jonqcitizen wrote on Jul 5, 2008 10:16 PM:
I just looked at the Mercedes Benz Website. The highest sedan base package is 87km, the highest Coupe 104k, the highest roadster 96K, the highest SUV 89k. So this makes me wonder, what was he driving that added 15k in options? Was it new? Did he purchase it used? How do you know? Was it a coupe (2 door) and sedan (four door), convertible or suv? Secondly, I have seen the Napa Valley Taxpayers Alliance website. I am not inpressed. I can point out errors in math on that one too.
To everybody, if you have an opinion to state, state it. That is what makes this country great. If you inflate your figures or report them inacurrately, shame on you. "
napablogger wrote on Jul 6, 2008 10:01 AM:
The $82 million is for OPEB which stands for other than pension benefits---it means pensions are not included. "
skeptic wrote on Jul 6, 2008 2:49 PM:
jonqcitizen wrote on Jul 6, 2008 9:18 PM:
I apprecitate the fact that you have retracted your 10% assertion and thank you for that. I am just trying to keep the numbers real here. However, you need to read it again. The plates in and of themselves are not special. The addresses attached to those plates are kept confidential. The people who are protected think they should be protected, and the paper (and you) don't agree. The toll authorities dont have to send the ticket to someone's residence, they can send it to their place of employment. They just don't want to. "
jonqcitizen wrote on Jul 6, 2008 9:54 PM:
It's quite possible you have been told that. It is wrong. It is also a common misconception. Perhaps you should go back to your sources of informationand ask them to show you the math. They don't have to show you the person, all they have to show you is the math. I am betting the number they come up with will not be 109%. I feel strongly that if you are going to continue to use this to bolster your argument publicly you have a responsibility to have it proven to you so that you are not using incorrect information.
As far as the 82 million is concerned, to my knowledge there are no other post retirement benefits besides medical coverage and pension. So what are you referring to. Is this 82 million mentioned elsewhere, because the numbers I saw in the article add up to 86.5 million, as it relates to the county. "
skeptic wrote on Jul 6, 2008 10:25 PM:
opiniagirl wrote on Jul 7, 2008 8:34 AM:
jonqcitizen wrote on Jul 7, 2008 3:56 PM:
skeptic wrote on Jul 7, 2008 11:44 PM:
napablogger wrote on Jul 12, 2008 10:52 PM:
I will give you this, it is not very many people, only a few, but there are some inbetween 100 and 109. But the fact that someone can even get that much is an outrage in itself to me. I think even 90% is way too much. They have turned the whole idea of pensions into a giveaway scheme. Of course, that is just my opinion, others obviously differ on that. To me, even if we had the money it is too much. There has to be a limit somewhere. Research shows that if people make 70% of their employed salary they maintain the same life style in retirement.
The math--3% times 37 years equals 110%. Since you can't get more than 109 it stops at that number. That means someone who started at age 20 and worked til they were 57 can get a 109% pension. And there are those who do that, and even longer. They say that they are working for free.
I just saw a retirement proclamation for a detective in the County Sheriff's dept about a month ago, and he said that he has been working for free for a while now. What he meant is that if had of retired a few years back he would be getting the same salary as if he were working. I can tell you no one in the room was surprised. "