NVR Logo
With pensions, county is on solid ground
Supervisors say grand jury concern on pension costs is overstated
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Save and Share Share
Pension and retirement benefits won’t cause Napa County to go bankrupt like the city of Vallejo, county officials said this week in response to a critical grand jury report issued earlier this summer.

In June the Napa County civil grand jury raised questions about whether Napa County risked bankruptcy if it did not reduce generous pensions and post-employment benefits paid to county employees.
In its response, the county said it should not simply forego its pension system for a cheaper defined-contribution plan, as the grand jury had recommended.

Similarly, city of Napa officials responded to grand jury concerns earlier this year by saying pension policies are often set at the state level, and that local agencies have been working for two or three years to minimize risks.
The county spends 54 percent of its $247 million budget for wages and benefits.

Supervisor Bill Dodd said Tuesday that while the board heard the grand jury “loud and clear” on the issue, that Napa County is in far better shape than Vallejo was when it sought bankruptcy protection earlier this year.
“Everybody looks at Vallejo and looks at it as a real problem,” Dodd said. “I don’t think we’re there.”

Britt Ferguson, assistant executive officer for Napa County, said Napa County will continue to look at costs, including whether or not the system encourages employees to retire too early.

The grand jury may have underestimated the main issues that plagued Vallejo, including the turnover of top leaders, labor-relation problems, too-generous benefits for emergency workers and mismanagement, Ferguson said.

“We have been pretty conservative,” Ferguson said.

Helene Franchi, principal management analyst for Napa County, said the county will continue to review all its benefit packages for its employees. At the same time, she said, the county has to remain competitive.

“It’s important to maintain a decent benefit level to attract good employees,” Franchi said.

County employee’s retirement and health benefits are provided through the statewide California’s Public Employees Retirement System — or CalPERS.

According to the grand jury report, costs to Napa County taxpayers to fund the county employees benefits over the next two years will be $39.4 million.

Franchi said the figure is about $23.6 million.

The grand jury did not take into account the fact that many county positions are funded either by state or federal mandates, she said.

There are about 320 retired Napa County employees, and about 270 more are expected to retire within the next decade.
16 comment(s)

kevin wrote on Aug 21, 2008 4:52 AM:

" See NB, nothing to worry about. The government bureaucrats tell me so... "

Native74 wrote on Aug 21, 2008 8:39 AM:

" I don't know what's changed in the past benefity package, but I NEVER paid into my pension when I first started working with the County. Wouldn't that be nice for your employer to pay your 7% to Social Security? I think it's changed a bit, but if they required employees to pay their full 7% we might have some money for our Roads...just stating the facts. Our tax dollars at work. "

musikluvr wrote on Aug 21, 2008 8:52 AM:

" The Grand Jury has warned us of a potential danger after a detailed investigation of the facts and Mr. Dodd has consoled us by saying "I don't think we're there". We deserve better than this. I think this is another reason people mistrust bureaucrats. This is why people don't vote. This is why candidates can run unopposed and be elected. No one believes our elected officials because they are held in such low esteem. "

steph wrote on Aug 21, 2008 10:15 AM:

" 'In its response, the county said it should not simply forego its pension system for a cheaper defined-contribution plan, as the grand jury had recommended.'

Why bother with a grand jury? The bureaucrats have it all figured out. What a scam.

Screw the taxpayers! They serve us! "

bill dodd wrote on Aug 21, 2008 11:03 AM:

" The Register didn't report all my comments. I said that we were not in trouble like Vallejo and we are not! However, I did say that we heard the main thrust from the Grand Jury regarding the costs of these pensions and other post employment benefits. We agree that these benefits are expensive and that the public is concerned about this problem.

The County will be in negotiations with the DSA and PSE unitons next year and I am sure these issues will be discussed.

Bill Dodd
Napa County Supervisor "

Cadence wrote on Aug 21, 2008 11:07 AM:

" Do the county honchos have a means of determining future health care costs for these pensioners? I buy my own health insurance and I am curious, because to date no one - and I mean NO ONE, not Blue Cross, not my professional association, no one can tell me how much things will continue to go up. They can only tell me that premiums WILL go up but not how much.
Health premiums are the unmentioned elephants when the talk is of pension costs. "

cab e-girl wrote on Aug 21, 2008 11:32 AM:

" "Supervisor Bill Dodd said Tuesday that while the board heard the grand jury “loud and clear” on the issue, that Napa County is in far better shape than Vallejo was when it sought bankruptcy protection earlier this year." Maybe Bill Dodd needs to be relieved of his duties. How dare he ignore the findings of a grand jury? That's not his money that he is putting at risk, it's the future of Napa County and its retirees. "

Native74 wrote on Aug 21, 2008 12:03 PM:

" Don't beat up the Dodd...at least he made comments (and on here) and I believe him when the reporter/editor cut some things out to sell papers.

As for union/mgmt contracts...those can always be re-opened for negotations if things get dire! At least they can in other municipalities (they are threatening to do so in a neighboring town) "

Listening wrote on Aug 21, 2008 12:10 PM:

" TO BILL DODD. Bill when you retire from 12-years on the Board of Supervisor you will receive about $20,640 a year pension plus lifetime benefits. "

cab e-girl wrote on Aug 21, 2008 12:42 PM:

" Bill: Thank you for your response, it wasn't up when I submitted my post. The real question is are you initiating change? We taxpayers are tired of being hijacked by labor unions. We want you to do more than "discuss" these issues. We would like you to actually do something. "

jonqcitizen wrote on Aug 21, 2008 1:09 PM:

" It always amuses me that people get so offended if you disagree with the grand jury. They are just a group of people who have an opinion that gets published. Big deal. I appreciate the time and energy they put into their job, but the reality is grand juries have been recommending all sorts of things for a very long time. In the end, the people who are elected, and or the management who are hired, generally speaking do their best to do their jobs well. They get years of training and experience by doing their jobs every day, as opposed to a small panel who convene for a short period of time to discuss hot topic issues. Personally, I feel that the long term solutions should be implemented by the people who wear that hat everyday, not a group of people who get a small glimpse of what is going on. I think their recommendations are worth discussing, but remember, they are only recommendations. People are allowed to disagree with recommendations. "

cab e-girl wrote on Aug 21, 2008 2:23 PM:

" jonq- I disagree with the Grand Jury all the time, but I am inclined to listen when the future viability of our county is being questioned. I think as citizens we should question our government. "

musikluvr wrote on Aug 21, 2008 2:42 PM:

" To jonqcitizen: The problem is that the bureaucrats have selective perception when it comes to grand jury reports. Just this year the grand jury praised Napa College eventhough it wasted over $100 million of our bond funds and the college officials swooned over that - yet the taxpayers took them to the woodshed in February. The grand jury then said we need to spend more on roads yet the supes decided it was only a political issue and rejected the grand jury's recommendation. Who can make any sense of it? The problem is that our bureaucrats have no duty to comply or even listen to the grand jury because there are no penalties for wasting taxpayer dollars or unsatisfactory government performance. "

Bill Dodd wrote on Aug 21, 2008 3:02 PM:

" I am not going to discuss Union negotiations in a blog format or make any predictions. Suffice it to say, with the State of California budget crisis our revenues will be cut significantly over the next few years.

Everything we do should be up for review, including employee benefits.

Bill Dodd
Napa County Supervisor "

Bauhausfan wrote on Aug 21, 2008 9:46 PM:

" Cabe-girl - " Bill: Thank you for your response, it wasn't up when I submitted my post. The real question is are you initiating change? We taxpayers are tired of being hijacked by labor unions. We want you to do more than "discuss" these issues. We would like you to actually do something. "

Yeah, this country is so over unionized at about 10% of the labor force.

Organized labor is horrible. Look what the gave us:

Higher pay and the middle class.

8 hour work day.

Overtime.

Workplace safety standards.

Child labor laws.


You never hear complaints about corporations making too much money, or "downsizing" too many people, or sending production overseas or not paying their share of taxes but heaven help us if people want to get paid well with benefits.

The horror. "

jonqcitizen wrote on Aug 21, 2008 9:56 PM:

" Cab-e: Feel free to question away (not that you need my permission), I think that is your right. I just think we should be able to question the grand jury as well. I am referring to the outrage some people show, i.e, "How dare he ignore the findings of a grand jury? "

Musikluvr: there are absolutely penalties involved if your elected representatives are not behaving in the manner you think they should. It's called an election. Get involved in more than blogging, find a candidate you support and go out to support him or her. "

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.
Search:
Advanced searchWeb Search Powered By Yahoo! Search
Copyright © 2008 Napa Valley Publishing, a member of Lee Enterprises, Inc.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy