Napa County pension reforms
By MICHAEL HALEY
October 28th, 2009
September 23rd, 2009
August 31st, 2009
August 20th, 2009
This week Napa County began a process of examining what to do about the enormous deficits in pensions due to the meltdown of the stock market. Pension and actuarial expert John Bartel presented an actuarial analysis on Tuesday to the Board of Supervisors to begin this process.
It appears that the CalPers fund is going to go down about 24 percent this year, with the additional heart ache of not meeting the 7.75 percent expected gains built into the assumptions of the system, a shocking loss of nearly a third of the value of funding.
What that translates into for the county is an increase in pension payments for its employees of between 2-5 percent of payroll beginning in the 2011-12 year, although one suspects it will be much nearer the higher number. Since total payroll is expected to be somewhere in the $90 million range in 2010, the average increase will be between $2 million and $4.5 million per year -- for a term of thirty years.
In other words, since the cost is based on averaging it out over 30 years, this dip is never going to go away unless there is an equally quick and equally large reverse in the stock market in a positive direction. That is highly unlikely, at least any time soon.
This is on top of what we are already paying, about $12.5 million a year, resulting in a payment beginning in two years of most likely $15 million or more per year.
To give some perspective on how much money this is for the county, the entire general fund budget for a year is about $70 million. $15 million a year is over 20 percent of the entire general fund just on pensions. On top of this, budgets are going to be cut all around due to the state’s woesome financial condition, this putting even more strain on the General Fund.
In an atmosphere where taxpayers have seen their pension accounts drop by 30-40 percent it is unfair to expect them to pony up for public employee pensions that are already far more generous than the general public receives. Who is going to shore up my pension for me? Taking more from the paychecks of taxpayers who are suffering the same losses to pay for one privileged group is just blatantly unfair on the face of it.
This is an excellent time for not only the County and City, but also the State of California to approach the unions and CalPers for a change in the pension plans. This is a crisis that brings an incredible opportunity, if only some leadership would take the reigns to approach it. So far, the state legislature and Governor have been totally dysfunctional on this score.
The County can do some things on its own, and the State would be well advised to do the same.
First, the County should raise the age of retirement for safety to 55, for other employees to 65. This would mean huge savings.
Second, employees themselves should pay the extra costs for the pensions, not the taxpayers. The taxpayers are paying enough as it is, in fact too much already. If the unions are not willing to do that, then the benefits should be cut accordingly so that the costs are not increased.
We also really need to look at flat salaries for two years for all public employees throughout the state including here in Napa. No raises in other words. Salaries for taxpayers are going to be more than flat in the next two years and we should all be in the same boat. This will also have a significant effect on pension rates because pensions are based on salary projections.
A final suggestion is to create a two tier system where new employees are on a much more reasonable and sustainable pension plan.
Local governments including Napa’s are very dependent on State law and CalPers rules to control their pension costs, and no ultimate solution is going to come without changes at the state level. The fact is that we have been living beyond our means and this is a fact that is going to outlive any economic recovery.
Regardless of how you feel about tax increases, the huge tax increases that the State is now proposing may provide a temporary band aid, but those increased taxes are going to further exacerbate our economic problems and over the long term are unsustainable. The entire budget will have to be restructured and pension reform should be at the top of the list.
Michael Haley is president of the Napa Valley Taxpayers Alliance. He writes a weekly blog on local, state and national issues. He can be reached at napaeagle@hughes.net.
Would you like a blog of your own at NapaValleyRegister.com? E-mail dross@napanews.com with three samples of the type of blog you'd write.
The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.
What gets your comment posted?
• Staying on topic
• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less
• Avoiding name-calling
• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger
What gets your comment deleted?
• Personal attacks
• Derogatory remarks
• Name-calling of any sort
• Going off-topic
• Hate speech
• Racially-insensitive comments
• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict
• Posting e-mail addresses
• Posting comments of a commercial nature
• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS
• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.
The fine print
- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.
- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.
- Comments may take several hours to be posted.
- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.
- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our
virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.
- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact
online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.
DinoSilver wrote on Feb 13, 2009 7:46 PM:
Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Feb 13, 2009 11:23 PM:
Public employees ought to ignore the whining by those from the private sector who desire to priviatize profits in good times while socializing costs in bad times.
Unorganized labor benefits from the gains made by union members. If more employees were organized, the middle class would not be suffering so much in current economic environment.
I believe Nobel prize winning Paul Krugman offers better economic advice.
Misery loves company. Through his blog, Mr. Haley sends his invitations. "
Ruff Limblog wrote on Feb 14, 2009 7:00 AM:
But... nothing...
NB, you failed to keep your word.
You continue to ignore the macroeconomic effects of cutting wages and benefits in times of economic stress.
Could that be because your agenda blocks you from addressing anything that does not fit within your ideology?
That's why there needs to be a counterpoint to the all rightwing all the time tilt at the NVR.
The rightwing extolls the huge salaries, golden parachutes and bloated pension s of corporate weasels, grifters and montebanks constantly. Heaven know THOSE folks deserve every dime of stolen loot!
But when it's government employees... now that's a different story! Their benefits must be cut, cut, cut during the Second Republican Great Depression which takes even more money out of the economy.
Once again I ask you, Napablogger, if $250,000 a year is too much money for government workers to make... then why not tax everybody who makes more than that?
Why do Republican voices only pick on workers when it comes to the 'pain' and never, never, no never, wish to discuss having the folks who can afford to pay their fair share actually pay their fair share?
~Ruff "
kingsbridge wrote on Feb 14, 2009 9:07 AM:
It is clear to all Napans, Californians and Americans that we are sinking further into a recession and that we need to take strong steps to ensure our collective survival. However, with an increasing percentage of the public budgets going towards salaries, BENEFITS and pensions it is not reasonable to expect much money to remain for schools, roads, health services... With the private sector taking such big hits it is unreasonable to think that the tax base remains to support the largess of the public sector at any level. The reality is that the public sector is eating cake while the private is dealing with crumbs (that is, those who have jobs and afford crumbs).
For those will might respond to this post, discuss what I said not my persona.
The Grand Jury report can be found on the web at: http://www.napa.courts.ca.gov/Documents/Alcohol%20and%20Retirement%20Benefits%20%5BCompOpt%5D.pdf. "
kevin wrote on Feb 14, 2009 11:00 AM:
I will probably regret asking MJH this, but what exactly DOES Paul Krugman recomend for solving the problem of the unsustainability of funding public pension funds as they are currently structured? "
DinoSilver wrote on Feb 14, 2009 1:34 PM:
napablogger wrote on Feb 14, 2009 10:06 PM:
Even before the recession, and even with sky high state taxes (people making 45K a year, an average salary, pay 9.4% state income taxes for example) Napa couldn't pave its streets. And Napa is the second wealthiest county in the state after Marin.
Where are we going to get the money? How much more can we soak the rich? Not that much, because if we do we will have no more rich and no one to tap for all the excess. "
cab e-girl wrote on Feb 15, 2009 9:00 AM:
Cadence wrote on Feb 15, 2009 10:03 AM:
Raise taxes!!
Taxes can be raised very cleverly. Fully fund the retirement obligations, then have little bond measures (they're not real money, are they?) to replace funds taken from other services. It would be pretty darned un-American not to vote for a library tax, for instance. Property owners may not even notice when these additions on their property tax statements. Those that do and can't pay will ultimately move to cheaper environs, hopefully selling their homes to better-heeled new residents. Owners of rental units may pass on the new costs to their tenants for now, at least.
No problem! "
Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Feb 15, 2009 10:21 AM:
Social Security is fully funded through 2046 (if GOPers leave it alone). Before Social Security, seniors were the poorest age group; after Social Security, seniors are the wealthiest. Social Security is the most successful retirement program in the country's history.
During the Bush years, some corporations raided private pension funds. Others underfunded them. Some had to be bailed out by taxpayers.
Pension reform (benefit cuts) was an early priority of the Bush Administration.
Remember when many said, "Government should be run like a business." Which one? WorldCom? Enron? Leyman Brothers? Citibank? Circuit City? (etc.)
Too many Americans hate paying their bills. Anti-tax groups often cry about high taxation while complaining about inefficient, inadequate government services. "
Sickothis wrote on Feb 15, 2009 3:26 PM:
Our "high" state tax burden is 6th in the country, yet we still are 50th or so in education sending per pupil?
Pffft. "
Ruff Limblog wrote on Feb 16, 2009 8:47 AM:
Please stop singling out working people for your ire.
Clip the coupon-clippers, and then come around asking the working class to take a hair cut.
~Ruff "
kevin wrote on Feb 16, 2009 9:10 AM:
As I asked before, what exactly DOES Paul Krugman offer as a solution to the unsustainibility of public pension funds?
Your little list of financial factoids is interesting, but it doesn't answer the question. Raising taxes is not an answer. The Legislature will be passing huge tax increases soon (if not already).
These tax increases will hurt the economy and in the long run produce even less revenue as businesses and taxpayers flee the state or otherwise hide their assets.
What do we do MJH? "
napablogger wrote on Feb 16, 2009 10:32 AM:
If the real working class making average salaries had to pay the same taxes as the rich their taxes would go up, a lot.
Let's not lose track of the real point with all the class warfare generalizations, however.
Pensions are too high, there is a too high you can go and California has done it.
Sure, raise taxes on the wealthy some, but that is not going to be enough. I don't see how you tax the wealthy in California any more than you already are, though, they are already paying over 50% of their income.
Btw, according to the NEA California schools are in the exact middle of the states in per pupil spending, not last. That is a myth started somewhere and people keep repeating it. We are also the fourth highest state in taxes--and the other three are having the same problems we are, New Jersey has terrible pension problems.
The states that are having the least budget problems and are not getting bail out money are all run by Republicans. Utah is one of them and has lower costs per pupil than California, and has some of the best schools in the country.
Liberals think money will solve every problem and that is not true. "
Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Feb 16, 2009 11:11 AM:
That's rich!
Krugman has written of pension funds that invested in properties while the real estate bubble grew. As a result, some pension funds have suffered tremendously. He advocates investing in bonds and super safe properties.
Mr. Haley seems to agree with Krugman when declaring his support for stimulus by government during an economic downturn such as the one now being experienced. I applaud Mr. Haley for his support of President Obama's recently passed stimulus package.
As a result of the global economic downturn, many Americans will suffer a lowered standard of living during the next few years, no matter what.
Class warfare raged in the U.S. between January 1981 and January 2009. That class war was called the Reagan Revolution. Now that the Reagan Revolution is over, it'll take a long time to clean up the debris left behind, and many Americans will suffer hardships. "
napablogger wrote on Feb 16, 2009 10:48 PM:
$30 million to save a mouse is not what I would have preferred. And other things, but the important thing is that we have step one done, now we need to move on to the banking and mortgage crisis.
I saw a PBS show today where a couple both got laid off from their jobs after having bought a house 4-5 years ago for 400K. Now the house is worth less than 200K and they cannot afford the payments. They are stuck. They are selling their kids toys in the driveway.
With 600,000 people losing their jobs a month now, it is an emergency that is going to redound to us all.
All kinds of people are losing their jobs that thought for sure they never would.
20,000 state workers are about to lose their jobs tommorrow in California. Bet they thought it couldn't happen. "
altered ego wrote on Feb 17, 2009 10:15 AM:
How low do the terms have to be for two unemployed people to make payments?
The government should be working on a real stimulus plan that promotes economic growth and more jobs.
And here in California we have a Legislature focused only on higher taxes.
Madison, the question is not about where the public retirement system invests, it's about where does the taxpayer funding for the system come from in the first place?
The cow has not only gone dry, the cow has been run over by a busload of California taxpayers heading for Nevada or other tax havens... "
napablogger wrote on Feb 17, 2009 11:54 PM:
I suspect those two people are going to foreclose and go live in an apartment.
If there is some plan to save their house for them I would listen to it.
And I agree about the stimulus plan, we are going to see another one, another big one, before the end of the year. Mark my words. "
PlasticPinkFlamingo wrote on Feb 18, 2009 8:52 PM:
napablogger wrote on Feb 18, 2009 11:29 PM:
glenroy wrote on Feb 19, 2009 1:20 PM:
Bill wrote on Feb 22, 2009 10:46 AM:
A firefighter or a policeman should not earn that type of income and for what reason? Merely because they are paid from public funds is not a valid point or their percentile in the income scale. Is the salary or wages of the district attorney or those of judges subject to the same reasoning?
Physicians, attorneys, accountants and many other professionals employed by the state should be subjected to the same reasoning. Managers responsible for the supervision of several hundred employees and budgets of millions should also be subjected to such reasoning.
And the simple thought is, if employed by the public you should not receive compensation that puts you in the top 10% or perhaps in the top 25%.
Let’s go all the way with this, all public employees should earn the same as a janitor and receive the same retirement compensation. Now that’s fair, I am certain it would solve all your grievances with the compensation of public employees and perhaps improve the service you would demand from these employees should you receive any.
Your broad scale attacks of Calpers and public unions as liberal enablers’ defeats many of your points. Envy of Calpers as opposed to private 401ks might better summarize many of your view points. There is plenty to beef but the broad scale hammer you employ defeats any reasonable examination. "
Bill wrote on Feb 22, 2009 11:03 AM:
napablogger wrote on Feb 23, 2009 1:34 AM:
Right now the standard is whatever the unions can extract from the elected officials, and since they are one of the largest contributors with the largest voting block in the state, they do pretty darn well.
I got those numbers directly from the City of Napa, from the County, and from numerous web sites including the county web site where you can look up any salary you want. "
Bill wrote on Feb 23, 2009 12:13 PM:
Wages are largely set by what communities of similar size and socio-economic make up are paying. Public employee bargaining organizations face more constraints than the private sector unions plus civil service and merit constraints. What’s your magic bullet?
Labor bargains in its own self-interest at least theoretically. You appear opposed to that adversarial relationship. It is accepted economic dogma so what do you propose to replace it? Perhaps another arbitrary commission to determine the salary of a public employee or a voter iniative to decide how much a lawyer, accountant, engineer or plumber, electrician or mechanic should make? Can we equate the salary of a Fireman to a plumber or electrician?
I am waiting to hear you suggest privatization of police and fire service. Now that would be an honest straightforward suggestion. That way you deal with unions as the private sector does by making it so difficult to organize as to be impossible to form a new trade union. The SEIU might like this idea. Of course then I would be advocating that the unions have the same advantages as private corporations. I don’t think you would go for that.
A slight addendum to you written word but you have bashed trade unions as in the autoworkers and misrepresented them in your bloggial written polemics. No need to hide from it. After all you claim conservatism, as your viewpoint and anti union polemics is all part of the repertoire. "
Bill wrote on Feb 23, 2009 12:19 PM:
kevin wrote on Feb 23, 2009 3:45 PM:
Bill wrote on Feb 24, 2009 7:27 AM:
Raven wrote on Feb 24, 2009 9:01 AM:
kevin wrote on Feb 24, 2009 6:35 PM:
I said the public employee unions shouldn't be able to force members to contribute their dues to the campaigns of elected Democrat officials.
Democrats who turn around and approve the wage increases and generous benefit packages that are the subject of this discussion... "
Bill wrote on Feb 24, 2009 9:43 PM:
It's a straw argument. You have advocated that no unions should be allowed to use their members due to support or lobby in politics and at the same time you argue for corporations using their investors money to lobby their positions.
Union members want their representatives to have an active voice as do investors. Either limit both or limit neither.
There are more corporate monies poured into the political process than union monies and it does not matter what party.
Address the issue of lobbying honestly and without the subterfuge of free speech. Union members and investors enjoy the benefits these monies gain so let's not continue a double standard. "
Big Blue G wrote on Feb 26, 2009 5:47 AM:
Rocketman wrote on Feb 26, 2009 9:59 PM:
reader wrote on Mar 2, 2009 10:18 AM:
In my opinion, every worker should receive a retirement match as a part of their salary and every worker should receive a living wage. If an employer cannot afford to hire a worker at a living wage then that employeer has no business hiring anyone.
NB: You put a real tainted twist on Cal-PERS. Do you know that all Cal-PERS employees pay a hefty amount into Social Security, $200.00-$300.00 month? Do you know that that money will never be collected back by the workers because they will receive a PER pension? All of that money, millions upon millions, if not billions, goes right back into the system, never to the retired PERs retiree.
You want to eliminate PERS? Then expect to be paying that reduction back out in the workers' old age, PLUS higher taxes to make up for what is currently going to those retired folks who depend on Social Security.
Instead of always slamming the workers why don't you advocate for more fair wages and more employeer responsibility. Now that would lower your taxes. "