Last time we discussed a Defined Contribution Pension Plan offered by the city of Irvine California. The city of Chico uses a Defined Benefits Pension Plan. What’s the difference? Plenty. Here’s a good read from Investopedia:
The operative words here are “Benefits” and “Contribution”. Defined benefits means, whether or not business is good, the employee gets the pension they were promised. ” Defined-benefit plans provide eligible employees guaranteed income for life when they retire. Employers guarantee a specific retirement benefit amount for each participant that is based on factors such as the employee’s salary and years of service. “
In California, the state retirement systems made “guarantees” they couldn’t keep – 70 – 90% of highest years’ pay with minimal to no contribution from the employee. ” Employees are not expected to contribute to the plan, and they do not have individual accounts. Their right is not to an account, but to a stream of payments.”
In the beginning, CalPERS even told employers they didn’t have to contribute much of anything – CalPERS said they would make wise investments, and that would pay for these crazy pensions. That didn’t work out, so the employers – cities, counties, and public agencies all over the state – are on the hook for the pensions. And they are turning to the taxpayers like Mack the Knife. See, the contribution was never defined in this plan, so it’s whatever CalPERS demands. Like a junky on the street corner, they want it NOW!
On the other hand, the most common kind of Defined Contribution Pension Plan is a 401K. “Defined-contribution plans are funded primarily by the employee. But many employers make matching contributions to a certain amount .”
In Irvine, the city put up a little over 12% of salary. The employee is allowed to contribute whatever they want, and to control the investments. An interesting notation in that agreement is that the employee must wait 5 years before they are “100% vested” in the plan, meaning, they don’t get a full pension until they’ve proven to be a good and loyal employee.
And a DCPP is less risk for the employer. “As the employer has no obligation toward the account’s performance after the funds are deposited, these plans require little work, are low risk to the employer, and cost less to administer. The employee is responsible for making the contributions and choosing investments offered by the plan. Contributions are typically invested in select mutual funds, which contain a basket of stocks or securities, and money market funds, but the investment menu can also include annuities and individual stocks.“
Both set-ups are risky for the employee. If CalPERS fails, and that’s looking more likely all the time, pensioners GET NOTHING. With a DCPP, the employee makes their own investments, if they aren’t market savvy, they stand to lose there too. But, given CalPERS’ track record, I can see where an employee would be wise to opt for a DCPP.
Why hasn’t the city of Chico (or the county of Butte, or any of the local gov agencies…) offered a DCPP? I think that’s a no brainer. The DBPP is more lucrative, as long as they can keep propping up the failing CalPERS. The most popular form of prop these days is the Pension Obligation Bond.
It’s time for The Discussion about who will pay for these outrageous pensions. Will the employees step up to the plate and do the right thing, or will council allow Staff to force the taxpayers to the wheel with new debt and higher taxes?
Joe Azzarito is a retired accountant who lives in Chico. Here’s a letter he recently sent to the city of Chico regarding the Tax-a-rama council has embarked upon since a “conservative” Super Majority took over in January. Thanks Joe, I hope this email inspires other people to express their outrage with this obvious ploy to leave the taxpayers holding the Pension Deficit Bag.
To all Chico city councilors and Senior City Staff:
The topics of municipal revenue enhancements, namely a sales tax increase and pension obligation bonds keep surfacing in the course of discourse and analysis by concerned citizens such as myself.
Now why would that be? Could it be that you all are not listening to your constituents demands that these disastrously wrong ill conceived options, for funding the massive unfunded pension obligations that this city has forced upon its citizens, be abandoned? Whenever I read or hear about these plans of enduring us to untold costs to fund city staff’s, be they unionized or not, exorbitant salaries and pensions, it makes my blood boil. Your dark of the night surreptitious intents, without transparency, to enact either of these programs is a dereliction of duty, maybe not to your sponsors, the unions, or your fellow colleagues, but certainly to your constituents – the people that pay your salary through taxes.
I have heard that programs such as these can be implemented, without the consent of the voters. How dare you! It is not enough to seek input from us but for us to approve of these wild schemes fraught with danger. Given that the ruling class of Chico earns far and away much more than the median income of the people of Chico, you have the gall to push these down our throats.
For those on the council, recently elected and those previously, you are not conservatives, in the slightest sense fiscally. You all seem to some how, symbiotically, look after each other’s tail. Unions give you campaign funds so that you can win elected office. In turn, you fulfill their needs by ensuring their members are well paid. Wherein do the citizens fit into your scenario? Oh, yes, we are to fill the city coffers with the funds you promised your benefactors. Our needs lay at the bottom of a very deep hole, somehow they are only minimally attended to. It shouldn’t be that way! We should come first as it is our sweat and toil that makes it all possible.
I have spoken many times of the badly written about California Rule that keeps you from “doing the right thing” – that being to serve notice to all city employees that as of a determinable date they will be paying the full cost of their “silver spoon” pensions and that salary structures must be revised, downward, to allow the city to adequately meets its obligations to its citizens, first. Promises, previously made in prior eras when economic conditions were much more rosier than now, need to be upended. It would necessitate that pay scales, merit raises, benefits, including pensions, be approved by a body, inclusive of a citizenry board, and not by the likes of City Manager, his staff and/or City Council. To keep the decision making in their hands alone is why these financial problems came about in the first place. Those that pay the salaries should be the ones deciding, not so now. To have city staff analyzing, recommending and being on the receiving end of the decisions made is tantamount to “conflict of interest.
At the very least a referendum should be devised and agreed to by vote of the electorate on all of the above. The unfunded elephant in the room must be sequestered and controlled. CALPERS should be informed of any changes and any separations be established. The pensions of all covered city employees would need to be renegotiated, with the stipulation that staff would be paying the full load of costs. Any conflict with current law needs to be assessed and corrected. It is high time that city pay the piper his due!
Thanks Dave, for writing a letter to the editor about the Pension Obligation Bonds the city is considering.
No, there are no “conservatives” on council – maybe they’re “conservative” with their own money, but they treat the collective pot like a big cookie jar. They rode into office on money from public employee unions, and now they are trying to pay back their benefactors by roping the taxpayers into paying for the overgenerous pensions and “post employment benefits“.
Here’s Dave’s letter – take his example, and start writing your own letters and emails folks.
Conservatives are supposed to stand for low taxes and fiscal responsibility. We are told we now have a conservative majority on the city council. But what we actually have is a council of impostors. They plan to use the revenue from their proposed sales tax increase to take on hundreds of millions in new debt. They also plan to take on an additional hundreds of millions in new debt in the form of a pension obligation bond. It’s a dangerous gamble. And on the off chance it pays off, it WON’T make the pensions sustainable. And if it doesn’t pay off it could bankrupt the city.
Combined pension and other post employment benefit liabilities plus interest are over a quarter billion dollars and growing. It can never be paid. But our local politicians will raise our taxes and bury us in debt to keep the gravy train rolling a few more election cycles. After all, bureaucrats and other city employees must continue to receive unaffordable compensation packages, including multi-million dollar pensions. And this in a county with a 21% poverty rate BEFORE COVID. It’s unconscionable, especially at a time when so many businesses and working people struggle to make ends meet. But it is to be expected when our local politicians are tools of special interests.
These politicians don’t represent hard working taxpayers and never will. Voters should remember this in the next election and defeat the sales tax increase and those council members responsible for it.
Dave Howell, Chico
No, these people DON’T represent the average Chico resident, they represent the public employee unions. It’s time to start thinking about replacements. Kasey Reynolds, Scott Huber and Alex Brown are out in 2022, let’s find some decent hardworking taxpayers to fill their seats. Reynolds is the worst kind of faker, running as a “conservative” and then bringing in not one, not two, but THREE TAX MEASURES. And Huber and Brown pose as protectors of the poor – BULLSHIT people! At a time like this, they want to raise taxes? Tell them HELL NO!
These people are all beholden to the union PACs. The employee unions are the worst kind of communist plot – the enrichment of the few, paid for by the many. Don’t fall for it, demand council bring employees back to the table to pay more of their own benefits, or throw these IMPOSTERS to the curb in 2022 and 2024.
The worst thing about Pension Obligation Bonds is that the proceeds would be gambled on the stock market. The assumption is that the investments would pay both the bond service and the pension deficit. How nuts is that?
I’ve heard various analogies – taking a credit card to the casino, taking a second mortgage on your house to pay the first mortgage, paying your credit card with your other credit card, etc. Of course people do all these things, and we’ve seen what happens to them. We’ve watched neighbors, friends, even family members lose it all in gambits like that, and we’ve shaken our heads and wondered how they could be so stupid. How is it suddenly prudent just because it’s a government agency doing the dumb thing?
They will tell us they know what they’re doing, just like CalPERS told the governor and all the state agencies that they knew what they were doing. They don’t.
The consultant who pitched this horror story in the making to the Chico City Council said the key would be to borrow the bond money at a rate of 3 – 4% interest. He speculated that money would make a good enough return on the market to pay that rate, and then some for the pension fund. But he made it clear, constantly, that a “downturn” in the market would be a very bad thing – then the city would owe both the bond money and the pension payments, both with interest.
The difference between those two debts, as reported by the consultant, is that CalPERS won’t dump us for not being able to make our full payments, our “obligation”. As long as we pay SOMETHING, they will keep on paying out the crazy pension payments. In fact, each agency negotiates their own deal with CalPERS and sets the employee contributions. Of course, if they don’t pay enough, the debt grows, with interest – that creates the Unfunded Actuarial Liability, or, the “pension deficit”.
On the other hand, a Pension Obligation Bond has to be paid, in regular installments, or the bond holders can demand either the back payments or the entire debt, on the spot. This means, they could empty the General Fund, and every other fund the city holds, except the Pension Stabilization Trust. The PST is the only truly, legally restricted fund the city has established. All other funds, from the streets fund to the park fund to the sewer fund and on, are available for allocation to the General Fund.
The proponents keep trying to tell us this is a fool proof scheme. They won’t acknowledge the fact that the market can turn ugly on a dime. Really ugly. Pension systems around the country are making some really desperate, stupid investments, according to this article from the Reason Foundation.
In the United States, public pension funds, which have an average investment return target of 7.25 percent, will likely struggle to meet those investment targets and could be severely impacted by plummeting interest rates. Without changes to pension plans’ assumed rates of return, many public pension systems will see an increase in debt.
Unfortunately, many public pension plan managers are not interested in adjusting their investment return targets to realistic levels at this time. Instead, they are seeking riskier, potentially higher-yielding investments in an effort to make up for depressed interest rates and hit their targets.
What’s super frustrating is the double talk. Our mayor, Andrew Coolidge, acknowledges that CalPERS is doing horribly, but tries to assure us that our staff can pull of successful investments. In this market?
According to this article, government agencies’ share of the UAL is about to go up again, due to risky investments. For example, “New Mexico’s Educational Retirement Board (ERB), which serves the state’s teachers, is one such plan that dedicates roughly a quarter of its portfolio to fixed-income assets. Within New Mexico ERB’s fixed income-investment allocation, 7 percent of funds go to emerging market debt, which is essentially sovereign bonds issued by countries classified by the World Bank as lower-to-middle-income to upper-middle-income. This includes countries such as Brazil, India, and Nigeria.”
“Even though emerging market debt carries much higher yields that are attractive to pension funds, those benefits can be outweighed by enormous risks since several of these countries have defaulted on their debt in the past. Due to this risk, public pension investment allocations to emerging market debt have historically been used sparingly in pension fund portfolios. However, in recent months, pension fund managers have signaled a growing appetite for allocating more assets to this asset class.”
As more pension funds take on these risky investments, more will fail, debt will increase, and be passed on to government agencies. In California, CalPERS has a horrible record of corruption, with various board members leaving in disgrace over manipulating the public trust to their own gain. Most recently an investments advisor left after he was found to be using CalPERS funds to buy stock in funds he owned. CalPERS is also floundering under huge board member salaries – here’s a thought – CalPERS has it’s own pension deficit.
Instead of screaming for investigations and reform, I think those public employees who stand to get pensions are getting desperate to make sure the pension systems are funded. I just can’t decide whether our council members are being led by the nose or if they are coming to the table knowing exactly what they are doing.
Crane gives us the history of collective bargaining in California, “which endowed police and other local personnel with the power to bargain collectively with the governments that employed them, handing political power over local budgets to government employees who were the principal beneficiaries of those budgets…”
Established by Ronald Reagan in 1968, this agreement “created a piggy bank to help finance GOP legislators.” But of course, it works for whichever party is in power, son when he became governor in 1975, Jerry Brown extended this agreement to school teachers and employees. This has resulted in elections controlled not by the Russians or the Iranians but by the public employee unions.
In Chico the biggest contributors in every election are the SEIU (management) and the CPOA (cops), with the IFFA (firefighters) coming in a close third.
In my opinion, this relationship is completely inappropriate – council approves hires, salaries, and benefits, sets staffing levels, and then accepts huge campaign contributions from the very people who benefit from their actions. I can’t believe the voters don’t see the conflict of interest in this system, but I’m guessing, most people don’t know. Everybody’s got their panties in a knot over the notion that Russia and Iran have influenced elections, but they don’t see corruption that is as plain as the nose on their faces.
So City of Chico and County of Butte, both of whom have outrageous pension deficits, are considering Pension Obligation Bonds. This action would forever place the burden of the pension deficit – created by the ridiculous salaries, overly-generous benefits, and completely unrealistically low employee contributions approved by our “local leaders” – on the backs of the taxpayers.
Instead, I suggest we dump collective bargaining – this could be done by city ordinance, and could be accomplished by a petition of citizens. Another option would be a city ordinance that cut the union PAC donations down to the same level as individual donations – about $1,000 per candidate.
Crane agrees on point #1 – “The antidotes are to repeal collective bargaining rights for government employees or to offset these voters’ power with persistent support of our political parties from donors who care about the general interest (full disclosure: Govern for California provides such support), not to whine about one-party dominance.“
Right now, as Doug Ose has said, “we are going backwards” as a state. Over-taxation has made housing too expensive, while infrastructure all over the state is failing. Chico Mayor Andrew Coolidge acknowledges the poor condition of streets in Chico, but advocates a POB, which would suck all the money out of the General Fund, which is made from allocations out of all the other funds – the streets fund, the park fund, the sewer fund, etc. You get the picture every time you drive or bike around town, or open your new sewer bill. Did you get the picture last night when council voted to INSTITUTE A FEE FOR USE OF UPPER PARK?
Wake the hell up Chico, and write a note to your mayor – that’s andrew.coolidge@chicoca.gov
A popular topic among academics is “intergenerational equity”. One explanation, taken from a box of laundry detergent: “Iroquois philosophy says that the decisions we make today should result in a sustainable world seven generations into the future.”
An old example of intergenerational equity would be “debtor’s prison”.
“Since the first recorded debt issuance in Sumaria in 1796 BC,[10] one of the penalties for failure to repay a loan has been debt bondage. In some instances, this repayment of financial debt with labor included the debtor’s children, essentially condemning the debtor family to perpetual slavery.”
Can you even imagine your kids being dragged off to jail because you can’t make your house payments? Apparently it still happens in other parts of the world.
“While slavery is illegal in all countries today, North Korea has a policy called, “Three Generations of Punishment”[11] which has been documented by Shin Dong-hyuk and used as a moral paragon of punishing children for parents’ mistakes.”
You think Americans are any better?
“Stanley Druckenmiller and Geoffrey Canada have applied this concept (calling it “Generational Theft”[12]) to the large increase in government debt being left by the Baby Boomers to their children.”
And part of that debt is the retirement system. Here they are talking about Social Security, which we’ve heard for years is failing because it is not funded adequately. “What?” you say. “Anybody who has a job pays into it, it must be funded!” Hold onto your hat for this declaration.
“The U.S. Social Security system has provided a greater net benefit to those who reached retirement closest to the first implementation of the system. The system is unfunded, meaning the elderly who retired right after the implementation of the system did not pay any taxes into the social security system, but reaped the benefits.”
Sound familiar? Well, maybe you didn’t know – our former city manager, Tom Lando, receives about $155,000/year in pension, for which he paid NOTHING. Until 2013, when Mark Orme agreed to pay a paltry 6%, the city made the “employer paid member contribution”. Meaning, the taxpayers footed the bill for pensions in excess of $100,000 a year, for people who paid nothing. And now, those people, including Orme, only pay 9%. Their underlings – those hired after 2013 – are required to pay more. It’s a big pyramid scam – the members at the top of the pyramid get the money paid by the bottom rung. Here’s an analogy of the Social Security system that is also true for the public pension system.
“Professor Michael Doran estimates that cohorts born previous to 1938 will receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes, while the reverse is true to cohorts born after. Further, he admits that the long-term insolvency of Social Security will likely lead to be further unintentional intergenerational transfers.”
Just substitute “CalPERS” for “Social Security” and there it is – the “intergenerational transfers“. A nice way to say “stealing candy from babies.” A nice way to say, “condemning your children to debt, poverty and enslavement to the system.”
It’s time for young people to realize what is going on. The pension system is not only a pyramid, it’s an upside down pyramid. There are too many taking out that never paid in, and too few paying too little. The system will collapse within the next 10 years unless older pensioners agree to take less, and younger pensioners agree not only to take less but to pay more. The taxpayers cannot sustain this system. Like ex Chico city council member Randall Stone said – this burden should be born by the employees, not the taxpayers, who have nothing to gain. Especially since all the money is going to the pension deficit, leaving nothing for services.
But I’m not too worried – I heard about this concept from my son, who told me, the biggest problem facing young people today, “is the pensions…“
Last week Chico City Council and Staff confirmed my suspicion that they are using closed meetings to run Staff’s Pension Obligation Bond by the taxpayers. Without any notice to the public, and only 46 members of the public participating via Zoom, they combined two agenda items. The POB was supposed to be discussed as Item 5.12, but they summarily decided to discuss and vote on it during the Item 5.1 – Scott Dowell’s 5 year projection report.
While the POB was a small part of the 5 year projection, I don’t think it was appropriate to just move forward with the 5.12 discussion. Here’s the thing – I read the agenda ahead, and planned to participate in the 5.12 discussion. When I tuned in, there was no 5.12 discussion, and no explanation why. So, I got cut out. I don’t think that’s okay.
So I asked the clerk what happened to Item 5.12. She responded:
The POB was added to the 3/2/16 agenda (with items carried over from the 2/16/21 agenda). Because the POB was tied into with 5 year projection (Item 5.1.), staff discussed the items together.
Council took the following action: A motion was made by Councilmember Morgan and seconded by Councilmember Denlay to authorize staff to continue exploring the CalPERS Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL) restructuring including a legal validation process, applicable public outreach and analysis for possible pension obligation bonds, with it noted that this action does not commit the City to move in this direction. Staff was also requested to bring back more information to the Council regarding the process as it becomes available. The motion carried by the following vote:
I was just floored. Another smooth move under cover of COnVID.
And of course the report is misleading.
“Staff is requesting approval to continue exploring the CalPERS Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL) restructuring including a legal validation process, applicable public outreach and continued analysis. This process would take approximately four months and prepare the City should City Council decide to issue POBs in the future.”
It’s not a “restructuring,” it’s NEW DEBT. The “legal validation process” is completely administerial – no ballot measure, no voter approval. “Applicable public outreach“? Here’s what it says in the report: “Continued public education and information shared through reports to the Finance Committee and other public forums.” Really? There are no “public forums” right now, only Zoom meetings, with poor reception and limited participation. And that “continued analysis” is going to cost “$10,000 – $20,000”. That in addition to $25 – 30,000 for the “legal validation process“.
Staff’s report also recommends “initiate a legal validation process” as Step 1, while “Continued public education” is Step 3.
Public education? Shouldn’t it be “public input”?
So you see this whole thing is being ramrodded in as quickly as possible in closed meetings because they don’t want the public to find out what they’re really doing.
Normally this is where I would tell you to write to or call your city council rep, but I keep hearing back from folks who have tried that, and got no response. I can’t report any better from my rep Kasey Reynolds. And you see the vote above – unanimously idiots. So, I would say, don’t waste your time trying to contact them directly, write a letter to the editor of either the Enterprise Record or the News and Review, or both.
And if you really want to get your point across, you have to stick your neck out there a little. Do your errands in a yellow vest, with “NO NEW TAXES FOR CHICO” scrawled across the back. Place a small sign in your car window saying same. If you have windows on your home facing the street, make 8 x 11.5 signs and post them in those windows. Get some blank postcards, write NO NEW TAXES FOR CHICO on one side, and send it to your rep via snail mail to their home.
Arlo Guthrie said, “One guy is crazy, two guys are (bleeep!), but three guys – THAT’S a MOVEMENT. And he’s right. They can ignore one or two of us, but I’m telling you, three, four, five more, and they start to pay attention.
I will remind you until I’m blue in the face – if we let them sell these Pension Obligation Bonds, we are on the hook for the pension deficit FOR-EV-ER, not to mention, the new debt. Meanwhile, we will watch our streets and infrastructure deteriorate to 3rd World standards. As their investments fail, they will bottom out first the General Fund, and then all the other funds, to service the bonds and pay the still growing Unfunded Pension Liability. As you see in the report referenced above, Staff suggests “Projected costs [for the POB] are as follows and would come from the General Fund: • Legal validation process: $25,000-$30,000. • Public education and continued analysis by a municipal advisor: $10,000-$20,000.”
So don’t wait until it’s too late, and then complain – COMPLAIN NOW!
I know, Chico First is a more fun website. I know, Rob Berry is more the action type, chasing Scott Huber around with a camera. Unfortunately, that circus is distracting people from something they should be paying attention to – that boring old Pension Obligation Bond that Mark Orme is currently trying to end-run around Chico voters/taxpayers.
Luckily there are other eyes on council right now, folks who are educated and number-savvy and also hip to this scam. A friend of mine recently contacted council to discuss his concerns about the POB, and he got a response from his district representative, Mayor Andrew Coolidge. My friend told me I could use Coolidge’s response for a letter to the editor, so I did. Coolidge is either stupid or a liar – you decide.
Chico Staffers are asking council to implement a Pension Obligation Bond. Recently a friend expressed his concerns to Mayor Andrew Coolidge, who responded, “That bond is basically financing the city’s obligation (around $147 million to cal pers) at a lower interest rate so it can be paid off over the long term, rather than on Cal Pers rollercoaster payback schedule.”
That is not true. A POB is new debt. The consultant explained, the city would invest the borrowed money in the stock market, hoping for return enough to pay both the bond debt and the CalPERS debt. The consultant speculated an interest rate of 3 – 4% on the POB, compared to 7% paid to CalPERS. But, the consultant was clear – if investments don’t do well, then we still owe CalPERS, and we also owe the bond holders.
Government Finance Officers Association says POBs are not worth the risk. But Coolidge, without really understanding what he is talking about, says, “I do believe faced with this huge burden the city may wish to pay it through a bank with minimal interest rather than to a state fund (cal pers) with an awful history of robbing from taxpayers.”
That is not how a POB works, we will still have to pay CalPERS. I don’t think any member of council really understands POBs, they are trusting Staff, who have everything to gain. Meanwhile, the taxpayers, who will be permanently on the hook for the pensions, are left out of the conversation.
Contact Coolidge, and your district representative.
Sorry to be a broken record these days, but I can’t emphasize enough that this Pension Obligation Bond that Staff is trying to force through will tank our town. While there is a complicated mess going on in our town right now, all related to poor management, the POB is the worst thing coming at us right now. I’ll repeat – this bond would cement the taxpayers into paying the pension deficit created by Staff. Meaning, all our resources would be drained into paying the deficit by way of the bonds – not to mention, a proposed sales tax increase. The POB comes before any other “obligations” – like roads, park, sewer and other infrastructure. And, as the economy tanks, the revenues will turn into debt, the biggest debt the city has ever taken on. Don’t be a dupe – the sales tax measure and the “roads” bond are just part of the exhaustive scheme to finance the POB.
Our biggest financial problem is Staff and their unsustainable salaries and benefits. Instead of trying to control employee costs, City Manager Mark Orme and Financial Services Director Scott Dowell have convinced council that we can just put it all under the rug with a POB.
I’ll guess I’ve done more research on this topic than any member of council. I’ve tried to share what I’ve found – here’s an article I sent to Kasey Reynolds and Sean Morgan. I chose them because I’ve had a pretty good rapport with them in past, and the other night when they voted YES on the sales tax increase and the “roads” bond, they at least tried to fake wanting to vote NO. So, I think they are malleable – you know, like metal – if you put enough heat on it and beat it with a hammer, you might get what you want.
“In the recent years, the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) came out with a stern advisory for local and state governments to NOT issue pension obligation bonds (POBs) to meet their unfunded liabilities and made a case for them being ‘complex instruments that carry considerable risk.’ It’s also important to note that some of the large municipalities that filed for bankruptcies in the United States had some exposure to pension obligation debt – including the City of Stockton and City of San Bernardino – in the years leading up to their insolvencies.”
Here’s an important point I want to come back to later –
“Primarily, these pension liabilities are based on a few factors: retirement age, mortality, projected salary increases attributed to inflation, across-the-board raises and merit raises, increases in retirement benefits, cost-of-living adjustments, valuation of current assets, investment return and other matters.”
For now I’d like to look at how exactly these bonds work and why the risk isn’t worth it for Chico.
Right now Staffers, especially Mark Orme and Scott Dowell, are trying to mislead council as to the risk of this scheme.
“One of the biggest challenges and largest variables in the aforementioned list of factors is the investment return on the pension portfolio; this single variable is also responsible for creating the large unfunded liabilities for many of the local governments.”
This is the risk that was ignored in the late 1990’s, when CalPERS said they could fund the outrageous pensions by playing the stock market, and here’s what happened:
“For example: a pension fund assumes an investment return of 7% for the year and bases its actuarial pension obligations for local cities and counties; however, the financial markets had a terrible year and the pension fund only generated 2% returns – this means that the 5% gets added to the unfunded liabilities portion for cities and counties – because that money, originally expected to be generated through investment returns, is still needed to fully meet the pension obligation for city and counties.”
On the one end, CalPERS was making bad investments – we see now, many of those were based on bribery and personal gain. On the other end, CalPERS kept promising better returns, and cities, counties and other local entities all over California started making unsustainable agreements with employees, giving across the board salary increases and overgenerous benefits packages. Even as CalPERS has failed again and again, government agencies like City of Chico have ignored the crisis, continuing to agree to over-generous salaries and perks, even lately creating three new management positions, with salaries over $100,000/year.
Here’s an older article (2013) that details “CalPERS’s three-decade-long transformation from a prudently managed steward of workers’ pensions into a highly politicized advocate for special interests.”
It was at long before that – early 2000’s – when former city manager Tom Lando made an MOU (memo of understanding) for Chico employees (including himself) that “attached salaries to increases in revenues, but not decreases…” That MOU resulted in Lando’s salary going from about $65,000/year to over $130,000/year. In retirement, he is now making about $155,000 (that’s where the COLA comes in).
The gentleman mentioned in that article, Alfred Villalobos, committed suicide about a year later over allegations that he had been bribing/accepting bribes to unload bad stocks. Just a year ago, another scandal led to the forced resignation of Chief Investments Advisor Ben Meng. Meng resigned Aug. 2019 after questions arose about why he did not recuse himself from decisions by CalPERS to invest in private equity funds in which he was holding stock! CalPERS made a more than $1 billion investment in April 2019 in a Blackstone fundMeng owned stock in, and Meng never recused himself.
Meng’s successor, Henry Jones, was also asked to resign, critics accusing him of concealing ethics violations made by Meng. Jones denied everything, saying, “CalPERS has known about questions regarding Ben’s Fair Political Practices [Commission] disclosure filings...”
So there it is – Meng disclosed his investments in those private equity funds, but the board still not only appointed him Chief Investments Advisor, but approved a $1 billion investment in those same equity funds.
So, CalPERS is a total disaster of fraud and corruption, and everybody’s known it for at least six years,, but the city of Chico didn’t change a thing, just kept doling out higher salaries and refusing to raise the employees’ share of the cost to a sustainable level.
Let’s go back to that first article – “Primarily, these pension liabilities are based on a few factors: retirement age, mortality, projected salary increases attributed to inflation, across-the-board raises and merit raises, increases in retirement benefits, cost-of-living adjustments, valuation of current assets, investment return and other matters.”
Chico makes all of the above mistakes, failing to manage employee costs. I like to refer to this bit from “Two and a Half Men” –
Yes, Charlie is an idiot. Get what I’m saying?
This is how the city of Chico spends money. New Public Information Officer? Homeless Coordinator? Another management position for Public Works? Complete with inappropriate shoes? All three positions created – not filled, created – in the last year, by Mark Orme, at salaries over $100.000/year.
Does this sound like prudent management to you? Frankly, I think the first thing we need to do, is get rid of Orme, and send his buddy Dowell right out the door behind him.
And then, in 2022, we should probably dump Reynolds and Huber. Because they just signed on to the sales tax increase and the “roads” bond. Coolidge already alluded to those revenues being used to service the POB. Another note from municipalbonds.com:
“Furthermore, the taxable form of pension debt is often secured by some sort of revenue sources, like sales tax or property tax, which means that the issuance of this debt cuts into a municipality’s debt capacity that could be used for other purposes. Issuing taxable debt to fund the pension’s liability increases the jurisdiction’s bonded debt burden, and potentially uses up debt capacity that could be used for other purposes. Also, the taxable form of debt is often issued without a call option, which makes it hard for a municipality to refund the debt at a lower interest rate in the future.”
Remember what Coolidge said at Tuesday’s meeting – “it’s open for discussion… what size bond and what percentage of that sales tax would go for a road bond…”
Orme, Dowell, and Coolidge, are knowingly trying to dupe us into thinking that sales tax increase would be for public safety, and the “roads” bond would be for roads. “Special” taxes, oh yeah!
On Tuesday, as Chicoans got ready for another “virtual” (closed) city council meeting, two Shasta County Supervisors held an open meeting, allowing citizens to come into the chambers and speak freely about how they’ve suffered under the COnVID shut down.
REDDING, Calif. – On Tuesday, a crowd of people gathered inside the Shasta County Board of Supervisors chambers. People passionately pleading to county leaders lift coronavirus restrictions and resume in-person meetings.
Inside the chambers, many people stood together, with only very few wearing masks.
The virtual meeting opened to the crowd that gathered outside, demanding to have their voices heard in person.
One by one each person spoke their three minutes.
Thank you Les Baugh and Pat Jones for doing the right thing, while the rest of the board cowered at their keyboards.
Supervisor Les Baugh and Jones were the only two to sit inside the chambers with the crowd. While Supervisors Rickert, Chimenti, Moty, and other county staff remained online.
Here in Chico, council and staff are trying to use the shut-down to shove as many tax measures through the system as they can, hand over fist. In addition to the Pension Obligation Bond already on the table, our new mayor Andrew Coolidge has proposed another bond, “for streets”, and a sales tax increase measure.
The Pension Obligation Bond presentation, same as the presentation given in September 2020, elicited almost no discussion from council, who voted unanimously to give the consultant more money to set up the “validation process“. In September, the consultant told the Finance Committee one of the best things about a POB is that it “does not require validation...” He meant, by the voters. This bond, he explained, requires only “judicial validation“, a purely administrative process, with absolutely no input from the public.
The consultant assured council, “they all get approved, it’s just a matter of time.”
After the presentation, Coolidge asked Scott Dowell for a list of costs, and then Kasey Reynolds asked the consultant if there would be any “public informational meetings”. The consultant told her that is up to council, that they could do “small groups” if that was what council would like. And, I’m guessing, that would cost extra.
It’s obvious Reynolds just wants to be able to say the public was informed about this bomb before it got dropped. What a bitch.
I was also shocked to see so few comments on Chico Engaged, but I noticed, all nine, including mine, were negative. The clerk referred council to the comments without reading names. The clerk already quit reading the comments because they became abusive, and now she’s quit reading the names because nobody should have to read fakes names like “Harry Gonads.” Council spent less than a minute reading before they advised staff and the consultant to bring more information.
Meanwhile, I wanted people to know how much money flows through this city, directly out of the pockets of city residents. You know you pay a gas tax, right? Got any idea how much of that the city of Chico gets? Or what they use it for? Have you seen $5,997,251 going into the streets or roads near your house? How about the garbage tax, cleverly titled, “Waste Hauler Franchise Fee” – $1,980,318 added to our garbage bills. And if you get cable tv, you paid into a total of $969,124, received as of June 30, 2020.
Here’s a double whammy – you not only pay a franchise on your PG&E bill, you pay “Utility Tax”. You also pay UT on your water bill, and if you have a landline you pay UT on that too.
Of course, I assume everybody knows about property taxes and sales tax, but I’m probably wrong – a lot of people have their property taxes paid by their mortgage company, so they can sail through life without a care in the world?
Here’s the totals for those revenues, as of June 2020. Roughly $60 million in revenues, just from these sources. But our fair city never seems to have enough money to fix or maintain anything? I don’t think it’s a no-brainer that these funds should be available for street/road maintenance. The city used almost half a million in cable tv fees to remodel council chambers a couple of years back, with Andrew Coolidge telling me those funds “had to be used for that…they couldn’t be used for street maintenance…”
During the same period, over $11,000,000 was paid to CalPERS through the Pensions Stabilization Trust and another fund called the “CalPERS Liability Reserve”. Both of these funds are filled by siphoning money out of all the other funds on a percentage of payroll. Most of the budgets of all these departments consists of salaries and monthly benefits payments, and many are in the red because of the further allocations for the UAL payments.
Scott Dowell reported our UAL has grown 43% over the last 5 years, but he didn’t say why. The reason is the unrealistically low employee contributions of 9 – 15%. In fact, management and public safety only started paying ANYTHING in 2012, when the UAL was already over $125,000,000. When City Manager Mark Orme and other management agreed to pay an additional 3% share, council gave them a raise to cover that percentage. Furthermore, Orme got himself a 457 Plan – a special 401K for public management. We pay over $20,000 a year into that 457, while Orme brags again and again that he has not received a raise for almost 5 years. That’s bullshit, what a stinking liar.
All this shoved through under the guise of public health and safety. Are we just stupid, lame, weak? Before you condemn the rioters in DC, take a look at yourself, and then read the US Constitution again.
And Best Wishes to Shasta County, I hope this is the beginning of the end.
Chico Taxpayers Association 