Archive | local tax increases RSS feed for this section

The bums aren’t the only problem with Bidwell Park

6 Feb

I haven’t given up on Bidwell Park yet. I had to respond to a letter writer who complained to the Enterprise Record that the city was removing too much plant material from the park. David Little complains that he’s getting so many letters about Donald Trump, its taking him a week to post the average letter to the editor, so I’ll post it here:

On December 27 I contacted the city of Chico to report an extensive transient camp in lower Bidwell Park. City manager Mark Orme thanked me and assured me that the city would follow up “at this specific site”.  

Over the next month I continued to find and report illegal campers in the same area, watching city staff chase them from one spot another, piles of trash left behind that included bike parts. Some sites were scattered with city-provided plastic bags full  of fecal  matter, whether from dogs or humans I wouldn’t know.  

Massive stands of non-native berry vines are tunneled into, dead limbs are arranged to conceal the campsites. Some of them appear to have been used for years. They are kept just out of sight of main trails and the road by the intense tangle of non-native and  dead vegetation. 

After a frustrating month of reporting these sites,   I was relieved  to see city crews have removed enough vegetation so that  campsites will be visible from the road for Chico PD. 

The city must continue to remove non-native, overgrown and dead vegetation from Bidwell Park. It’s not just about the bums – our big oak trees are in trouble, being smothered out by invaders like Himalayan blackberry, English ivy, privet, and vinca.

Unfortunately the park is in serious trouble after these storms. On a bike ride yesterday I saw sections of the south road that are falling into the creek. Dead trees laying across the creek cause the water to spread out toward the road, undermining the pavement. 

The north park road is a big mess from not just car traffic  but the garbage trucks the city sends in once a week to empty the trash cans. The city crews used to go in with a pick-up truck, but the city says they save money by using Waste Management. Really? 

This is gross mismanagement. It started years ago  under a “liberal” majority, but continues full speed ahead with a “conservative” majority that spends all our budget on salaries and benefits, and tells us we must pay more if we want the type of services generally expected out of a city with a $100 million budget and management paid upwards of $200,000 a year with 88 – 91 percent of their benefits paid by the taxpayers. 

Silly us! We, ourselves, are to blame, we let this happen.  The longer we let it go on, the more we are to blame.

I’ll continue to take pictures and post them here, send them to ER Hot Shots, and maybe even to the city council. You do same.

Hello?

CARD makes some changes in their plans for a phone survey, now scheduled for late February

4 Feb

Since I wrote a letter to the Enterprise Record telling people to watch for a CARD survey in late January or early February, the ad hoc committee that was formed to make arrangements with the consultant has called for a few changes. For one thing, contrary to what the consultant told the board at the meeting I attended, the survey will now include a question about “ a potential revenue measure,”  according to GM Ann Willmann. The consultant had told the board, there would be no mention of CARD, no mention of a revenue measure, just a vague discussion of what kind of activities people were interested in. 

At least now they will be more honest, but I’m guessing there will be no mention of their $1.7 million pension deficit, expected to grow by roughly $57,000 a year. This needs to be part of the discussion. They also need to answer for years of neglect at various facilities,  such as Shapiro and Pleasant Valley pools. They need to explain the decision to buy the rot-riddled and non-ADA compliant money pit known as Lakeside Pavilion. They need to explain what happened at DeGarmo Park, the flooding of the play field, the failure of the playground facilities, ten’s of thousands poured into repairs at that park since it opened. They need to be more up front about how they fund management pensions at the expense of other employee’s hours and benefits and deferment of maintenance to their facilities. 

They seem to be very defensive about the aquatic center. I didn’t even mention that in my last letter. They just want to avoid the questions I’ve raised about their pensions and other silly expenditures.

Phone survey for CARD planned for late February

By Laura Urseny

lurseny@ chicoer. com @ LauraUrseny on Twitter

CHICO >> During the week of Feb. 20, hundreds of Chico households will be getting calls, asking for a few minutes of time to answer some questions about recreation.

The survey is sponsored by the Chico Area Recreation and Park District, which wants to know residents’ feelings about recreation and CARD itself.

“ We’re rea lly tr y in g to determine what people know currently about CARD, how CARD is doing, what they would like to see in parks and facilities in the community, and how they recreate,” said CARD General Manager A nn Willmann on Tuesday.

Last year, CARD’s board of directors budgeted up to $ 38,000 for a contract to EMC Research of Oakland for the survey. EMC hopes to get at least 400 responses.

The survey will also ask a question about “ a potential revenue measure,” Willmann said.

That revenue measure was the catalyst for this survey and much of what happens in 2017. EMC Research did a similar survey for the Chico Unified School Distr ic t , which was able to put a successful bond measure on the November ballot for district improvements.

CARD has been considering building an aquatics center, which has been part of its master plan for years. The closure of C A R D – op er at e d S h ap iro Pool in 2016 pushed up the significance of the proposed center.

CARD has not had the money to build it, but has discussed a way to raise money for it, and possibly other CARD priorities. The board has been talking about a tax, choosing between a set per- parcel tax or a “ benefits assessment” tax on property owners based on property valuation.

Regarding the survey, Willmann said the board expects to get a repor t from EMC in March. After that, CARD will look at doing a public relations campaign to help the community better understand what CARD does and determine what the community wants in regards to recreation.

Another sur vey could follow the campaign to gauge its impact, and then CARD would determine whether to proceed with a revenue measure.

Willmann said the survey will include questions on the proposed aquatic center, but not ex tensively.

“ It’s about all forms of recreation, not just will CARD build a pool.”

Willmann said information culled from the community interaction may also be used in the general plan update, which is going on currently.

CARD’s board budgeted $ 28,000 for the sur vey, and a total of $ 80,000 in regards to the steps leading up to deciding on the revenue measure.

Poor spending decisions just lead to more poor spending decisions at Chico Area Recreation District

2 Feb

As my husband and I got on our bikes to head for a special Chico Area Recreation District board meeting, I noticed big wet dots on the old corn planter that sits alongside my driveway.  We’d  been hustling through chores all day, busting around town on errands, and I was tired. The big rain drops seemed to be  saying, “Oh forget it Juanita, you shouldn’t be out right now, go in the house and pull the covers over your head…”

My husband had already pumped the tires on our bikes, he’d adjusted the old Sturmy Archer on my 1956 Raleigh Superbe – I couldn’t disappoint, so I mounted up and we headed for the sprawling bum camp known as “Bidwell Park.”

I was surprised, my husband showed me what he’d discovered earlier in the day walking Biscuit in the section of Middle Park alongside our neighborhood- the bums were gone.  The leafy overgrowth and dead trees that had sheltered their illegal campsites were gone.  You can actually look right  through it from your car on Vallombrosa. 

This is just what I knew needed to be done, but I thought the city was dragging their feet, and I didn’t believe they would do it. When Mark Orme told me the program that employed jail inmates to clean the overgrowth was losing funding, I lost hope. My husband and I stopped using the park for a few days, taking Biscuit farther from home, which took more time out of our day and used precious fuel.

Wow, turns out, I owe Mark Orme and staff a big thank you.  We’ll see how long this lasts. 

By the time we got to the freeway overpass the rain drops were starting to splash on my eye glasses, and I wondered what kind of storm we were getting ourselves into. I was wearing wool from head to toe, you know how wet wool feels. And smells. We made it to the CARD center and locked up our bikes. We noticed the roof top skylights had been covered with heavy plywood, wondered what was up with that but forgot to ask. 

As we walked into the building I felt a sudden panic – I had forgot to check the location of the meeting, I’ve done that before and ended up at the wrong location. We found the room where meetings are usually held was busy with some sort of meeting or class.  I was really feeling stupid when my husband noticed the open doors at the end of the hall, board members seated around a table in the “big room.”

We sat down with the League of Women Voters observer – I appreciate the league covering these meetings. They pay attention to legalities, like the Brown Act.  She immediately asked if there were copies of the agenda for “the audience”, and yeah, the staffer had to go make copies. They really don’t expect the public to attend, I was shocked they put out chairs.

It was all very nice and chatty.  The meeting started promptly and was well run. Ann Willmann gave her report as to why the roof job  would need an additional $75,000.  Willmann is personable and professional. She said that removal of the roof tiles had exposed a layer of moisture soaked fiberboard. That would need to be removed. The “good  news” is, she said, they would now be able to add a layer of R-14 insulation, which hadn’t been in the plans. 

As an old landlady, I had to wonder – weren’t they planning on taking off the whole roof anyway? Didn’t they know how rotten it was when they purchased this building just four years ago?  Wouldn’t they have been wise to plan the insulation from the get-go? As board member Michael Worley pointed out, this would result in a huge savings for PG&E. 

Ever wonder what it costs to keep a building like Lakeside Pavilion lit and heated/cooled? 

Willmann had more “good news” – the contractor had suggested, since they would be removing the whole roof, how about removing those ugly columns – they look like Stone Henge, he said, and will  no longer match the roof. So that was added to the cost overrun.

And of course that will necessitate repainting.

All this “good  news”! 

They’ve already budgeted and spent $250,000 on this roof job.  So what’s another 75 Grand?

These people talk about $75,000 as if it’s chump change. I’d like to remind them, the median income among people who don’t have their snout in the trough is $43,000/year. They’re talking about almost twice that amount for a budget appropriation for a roof job. 

They paid over a million for the building, and are currently paying interest only. This is paid semi-annually – $38,351 twice a year. CARD still owes $915,000 on Lakeside Pavilion, at 5.75 % interest.  

In 2015 they spent $6,000 on dry rot, that was before they started the roof job. 

I’m guessing they have not begun the updates for Americans with Disabilities Act requirements. They did spend $40,000 on ADA requirements for the CARD center, but I don’t know if that is complete. 

I have to wonder again why they bought Park Pavilion in the first place. They could have put that money into maintaining Shapiro and PV pools, the skate park, and other facilities. They could have used that money to pay for more worker hours and the required benefits, but instead cut most workers to 28 hours or less to avoid paying benefits. 

And if you think Lakeside Pavilion is a money pit, check out the figures for DeGarmo Park – they’re paying 10 percent interest on $700,000, with payments of about $82,000/year. That park was bought in 1996 – they have already spent tens of thousands on repairs. That’s in the budget, look for it yourself. 

This agency’s actions do not warrant more tax dollars. When recently pressured by CalPERS for more money, they only raised employee contributions from zero to 6.25 percent, with “classic” members paying only 2 percent. They expect the taxpayers to foot the rest of the bill, for salaries that could support three families. 

It’s time to be vigilant, these agencies are under more pressure from CalPERS all the time. They would certainly rather pass the buck  along to the taxpayers, it’s time to tell them how you feel about that.

 

No, Measure K was not “about the kids”

1 Feb

I forwarded the article from the Sacramento Bee that I posted here yesterday

http://www.sacbee.com/news/business/article128942009.html

to Chico Unified School District Finance Director Kevin Bultema, asking how the failure of California Teachers Retirement System would affect our school district. He responded,

Good afternoon Ms. Sumner,

This has been one of the key budget issues facing CUSD.  The recent downward adjustments in CalSTRS estimated investment earnings is adding additional pressure to employer contribution rates in future years.  Employees did have a small increase in their contribution rate in 2015-16 from 10% to 10.25%.  The employer contribution rate has increased since 2015-16 and is projected to increase each year through 2020-21.  We discuss the financial impact of the projected PERS and STRS rates at every budget presentation.  Below is a slide we include in all of our budget presentations to keep our board and the community informed of this issue.  I hope this helps answer your question.  Have a great evening. 

Bultema ran the Measure K campaign, but gee Beav, none of this stuff came up in his Argument For, nor in the rebuttal to my argument, where he and Mark Sorensen chastised me for not getting it. 

Maureen Kirk told me she was supporting Measure K because “The more I looked into it, I came to the conclusion that the schools really need our help and support. This does not support retirement and benefits and directly helps the students.”

I wrote to Kirk and Sorensen and chastised them for their support of Measure K, forwarding Bultema’s e-mail with the link to the Sac Bee. I hope you will do same:

mkirk@buttecounty.net

mark.sorensen@chicoca.gov

The rebuttal to my argument against Measure K claimed I didn’t “get it.” Well, do you get it now Mark?  Here Kevin Bultema admits, CalSTRS has been failing, but nobody mentioned that during the Measure K campaign.  It’s all about the kids, huh Maureen?  Just in case you don’t read The Bee, I included a link to the article I had referenced to Bultema, although I know Mark already knows exactly what’s going on.  Sincerely disgusted, Juanita

Kirk and Sorensen are both up in 2018.  Where can we find suitable replacements? 

Meanwhile, another thing to remember, Chico Area Recreation District has hired the same consultant to run their bond/assessment campaign, so be ready for LIES LIES LIES.

Thank a Teacher! California taxpayers will pay $153 million more a year for school district pensions

30 Jan

Thanks Bob for this article from the Sacramento Bee.

“CalSTRS will consider lowering its official investment forecast in a move expected to require higher contributions from state taxpayers once again for the teachers’ pension fund. The cost to the state could be an additional $153 million starting with the next fiscal year.”

 

I didn’t know this was legal:

Three years ago, the Legislature agreed to raise contributions to CalSTRS by billions of dollars a year. Assembly Bill 1469 affected the state, local school districts and teachers themselves. For example, the annual contributions from school districts is growing from $2 billion to $6 billion, although the increases are being phased in over several years.

The 2014 law does give CalSTRS some latitude to impose higher rates on state taxpayers without going back to the Legislature for permission. According to the staff report, Gov. Jerry Brown’s budget proposal for the new fiscal year includes an additional $153 million for CalSTRS, bringing the annual contribution to $2.8 billion.

No matter what Chico Unified said about crumbling classrooms, rot, mold, asbestos, old computers – it’s the pensions folks, it always has been.

CARD to run phone survey in late January, early February, trying to convince us to tax ourselves for their pension deficit

21 Jan

Run in the Enterprise Record, 1/22/17

At their November 16, 2016 meeting, Chico Area Recreation  District Board authorized  $28,000 for  EMC Research of Oakland to conduct a community engagement survey.  Consultant Ruth Bernstein said a phone survey would be conducted in late January or early February. Callers will not mention CARD, nor that CARD is seeking an assessment or bond on property owners.  Bernstein told the board the survey will “build community support for your vision,”  identifying  “what they want…then you know what to say about yourself…”  

CARD has spent nearly $100,000 on revenue measure consultants since a 2012 survey came back negative. Consultants have told CARD repeatedly, they need to build their image in the community to get the public to tax themselves more for this agency. This survey is part of a campaign to convince residents CARD could give them whatever their hearts desire if only they’d agree to tax themselves more. 

CARD already gets about $3.8 million – roughly half their budget – from property taxes. They spend almost $800,000 on retirement and health benefits for less than 30 employees. Management, protected by “PERS PEPRA”, only pay 2 – 6.25 percent of their benefits. According to their auditor their pension deficit increased by $54,480 this year, now $1,758,200.  At the current rate of employee contribution the auditor reported the pension deficit “will never go away.”  

If you receive a call from this consultant, be sure to ask a few questions of your own.

Juanita Sumner, Chico

 

 

The problem with Bidwell Park: they’ve deferred maintenance but kept on paying their salaries and benefits

11 Jan

I e-mailed park manager Dan Efseaff yesterday regarding the backhoe that sank into the asphalt path in Bidwell Park. This is a heavily used commuter trail.  In good weather you will see people riding Downtown to their jobs.  My husband and I use  it regularly to get out and do various errands around town, most of which involve SPENDING MONEY. So I wanted Efseaff to know, somebody cares. 

I wonder when we can expect repairs to the asphalt path under the freeway. My husband and I encountered a city back hoe sunk into it yesterday. There’s a big sinkhole there.  I got a good picture for my blog if you want to see it –   chicotaxpayers.com

 The asphalt was just laid right over dirt – this path has been undermined by gophers for some time. There should be road base laid under asphalt, with proper preparations. The little sinkholes that have formed over the years are a hazard, especially for pedestrians. This back hoe sinking was bound to happen, but it’s just lucky nobody has been injured. I use the park paths regularly, and there’s hazards out there  that need to be addressed, including these asphalt paths laid improperly over dirt. 

 Thanks, Juanita Sumner

The response I got was nothing short of depressing:

Hello,

 Yes, unfortunately the City skimped on road base years ago when the paths and roads were paved, we sometimes tread on the asphalt as if it is thin ice—the backhoe broke thru as we were clearing a hazard tree across the path.   In addition, the recent weather conditions have accelerated the decline of a number of deferred maintenance issues.

 We will need to wait until the soil is dry enough for us to do a temporary repair (fill and compact properly).  We will then put on some gravel base to provide a temporary surface (and better base for the future), and then later schedule an asphalt repair when Right of Way starts that operation later in the year.  The temporary fix will reconnect the path.

 Long-term, we will seek funding options for more comprehensive repairs and fixes to Lower Park roads and paths.

 We are collecting an inventory of issues, so let us know if you see anything new (530-896-7800), but be careful in the Park the next couple of days as the wind and saturated conditions are of concern to us.

Thanks.

 Sincerely,

 Dan Efseaff |Park and Natural Resource Manager

530.896.7801 | dan.efseaff@Chicoca.gov

Yes Efseaff admits the park has been “skimped on”, while salaries have gone up and benefits have been paid.

According to Public Pay, Efseaff makes $93,000 in salary and gets a $47,000 pension and health package.  He pays 9 percent of his package – what, less than $5,000/year out of a $93,000 salary for 70 percent of that salary into perpetuity. 

Whenever I read this stuff I want to slap their hands – “get the hell out of my purse, Leech! 

Here’s a guy who admits, he just hasn’t been doing his job – he collects the salary and perks, alright, but he “defers” the work. Great! 

A “temporary” repair for a trail that is a major commuter route in dry weather? They will “seek funding options”? 

Here’s the city’s 2016-17 budget:

http://www.chico.ca.us/finance/documents/2015-16CityFinalAnnualBudget.pdf

The park fund has a lot of money in it, but management eats like pigs.  Park salaries outpace the budget by almost $5 million, leaving a deficit in the General/Park fund of $4,266,937.

So I gotta wonder – what does he mean when he says “seek funding options”? 

And, he makes the usual plea for us to help him collect his $93,000 a year salary – “let us know if you see anything new”? 

Don’t get your loafers dirty Dan. 

Tags:

Cut the pensions

3 Jan

Thanks Rob, for this link to yesterday’s Dan Walter’s column.

Walters opines, “If it’s not economically or politically possible to finance the pension promises made to state and local government employees, the system’s only hope for solvency may lie in reducing those promises.”

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/politics-columns-blogs/dan-walters/article123886739.html#storylink=cpy

We must ask ourselves, who made these promises in the first place?

  • Jerry Brown – with contributions of $50,000 – 100,000 from just about every employee’s union in the state of California  (   https://votesmart.org/candidate/campaign-finance/69557/jerry-brown-jr#.WGu0MvkrKUk   )
  • Third District Butte County Supervisor Maureen Kirk.    As a council member Kirk signed the “Memo of Understanding” that attached city employee salaries to “increases in revenues but not decreases…”   She also signed one contract after another requiring the city to pick up the lion’s share of city employee benefit expenses –  not only the much larger “employer share” of pensions and benefits but all or most of the “employee share” – the “employer paid member contribution”. For years under Mayor Kirk “public safety employees” paid nothing toward their own pensions, while management employees were allowed to get away with 4 percent. Now she rubber stamps raises for the county, as well as anything the Behavioral Health Department wants.
  • Second District Supervisor Larry Wahl – Wahl signed on to all of the above as a council member and added a step-increase system for the police department that essentially means automatic promotions and raises. As supervisor Wahl has voted to fully fund every request made by the Behavioral Health Department.
  • Don’t look now, but your former and current mayor are public employees who collect their own pensions. Don’t expect either Mark Sorensen or Sean Morgan to turn down any raises or require higher contributions, especially for cops or fire. They’ll dump lower level employees to feather the public safety nest, which is why our streets are shredded and our park is a disgrace.
  • Your vice mayor is a former employee of CalPERS. When we asked Reanette Fillmer during her 2014 campaign if she is eligible for a public pension, she said she didn’t know.  Don’t expect a straight answer about anything from that little minx. 

Do you feel responsible for these pensions? Do you get a pension? If so, who pays for it? 

Our public employees are like junkies – they’re high on ENTITLEMENT, the notion that they are better than us because they are a member of the racket, and we aren’t. They are high on the notion that we will foot the bill for their ridiculous lifestyle.

Remember what Nancy Reagan told you – JUST SAY NO!

 

Why should the public be saddled with the “burden” of public worker pension debt?

28 Dec

Here’s a letter I sent to the Enterprise Record in response to the editorial run Monday – “CalPERS keeps loading public with huge debt”.  

In answer to the editor, I’ll ask why the taxpayers should be stuck with the “burden” of public employee pensions? 

At Chico Area Recreation District, for example, management has only recently started paying into their own pensions – at a rate of 6.25 percent.  “Classic” management members pay 2 percent. For 70 percent of their highest year’s salary at age 55. The current CARD director makes over $110,000/year in salary.  

The median household income in Chico is about $43,000/year, while the average city of Chico worker makes over $80,000.  Many public safety workers and  most of city management make over $100,000, plus perks. Why can’t they contribute more than 12 and 9 percent, respectively?

The state mandated that “new hires” – that’s an employee who has never been in any public retirement system – pay 50 percent. Why aren’t existing employees asked to pay 50 percent?

Our current mayor, and vice mayor, and two council members are or have been enrolled in the public retirement system. The spouses of two others are enrolled in the system.  Does this make it difficult for council to demand more from our city employees? 

Join me at chicotaxpayers.com to demand that  public “servants” pick up more of the tab for their retirement.

For some reason, Little failed to post that editorial in the online edition. That is a physical job, requiring intent. Little once admitted to me that he doesn’t print every letter he gets in the paper edition, but chooses instead to post them online. So, it’s definitely a choice he makes, whether or not to post in the online edition.  

What? Didn’t want to open the editorial to discussion on Disqus? 

So, something tells me, he’s not going to print my letter. Well, there it is. I hope the rest of you will give him your two cents.

NOTE: I contacted the San Jose Mercury register, a managing editor told me the editorial had been written by one of his co-workers. He explained to me that the ER is owned by the same company at the MR, and has permission to reprint.

So, this is “local” journalism?

Enterprise Record a “conservative” paper? Really?

26 Dec

Here’ s the latest editorial from the man who endorsed Measure K and then refused to interview me when I mounted official opposition to the bond measure.  I had to post the whole thing because it’s not available online, there’s no link.

NOTE:  This editorial ran in the Monday December 26 edition of the Enterprise Record, but for some reason,  as of Wednesday the 28, it has still not appeared in the online edition.

NOTE-NOTE:  Looks like Little picked up this editorial from the Mercury News, but failed to identify it as a pick-up in the the e-edition that I get.

So, I took the opportunity to add my own commentary.

CalPERS keeps loading public with huge debt

Chico Enterprise Record, Monday December 26,  2016

The nation’s largest pension system last week demonstrated once again that it’s willing to drive taxpayers deeper into debt to placate government worker labor unions.

Why drive the taxpayers deeper into debt? Why not demand that the workers either pay their own pensions or lower their expectations for retirement bling?

Directors of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System voted to lower their investment forecast, a move in the right direction that means employers and in many cases employees will contribute more to shore up the ailing pension plan.

Again he’s saying employers – and that’s the taxpayers – should have to pay this debt – why? 

But the changes will be phased in at a glacial rate over the next eight years and CalPERS’ own numbers show they’re not nearly enough.

CalPERS has known about this pension debt problem for at least ten years, I’ve been blogging it myself for at least four years. 

By its actions Wednesday, CalPERS acknowledged it has only 63.5 percent of the assets it should. That places the system’s shortfall at about $170 billion and on the backs of taxpayers. It averages more than $13,000 of debt for each California household.

The backs of the taxpayers? Why? We were never consulted when Gray  Davis made this scheme, we recalled him, but we still got stuck with the deal he struck with the employees’ unions.

It’s actually worse than that. And the longer the union- dominated CalPERS board fails to comprehensively address its funding problems, the larger that debt will likely grow. Unlike upfront contributions that are shared between government employers and workers, the shortfall lands solely on taxpayers.

Why?!

Nevertheless, Gov. Jerry Brown touted the deal, which his office struck behind the scenes with labor. He said the change is “ more reflective of the financial returns (CalPERS) can expect in the future. This will make for a more sustainable system.”

More than what? Yes, it’s closer to a reasonable target than the past policy, which was completely divorced from reality, but it doesn’t come close to actually putting CalPERS on a sustainable path.

Like the governor’s muchtouted pension law changes of 2012, this CalPERS adjustment only marginally slows the bleeding. It doesn’t come close to solving the problem.

Specifically, the CalPERS board voted to lower its assumed rate of investment return from 7.5 percent to 7.375 percent in fiscal year 2017, 7.25 percent in 2018 and 7.0 percent in 2019.

That means the pension system will lower its expectation for how much interest it can earn from its assets and instead turn to government employers to kick in more.

But that increase in contribution rates for state and local governments, many of whom are likely to pass on some of the burden to workers, won’t be fully phased in until 2024.

Oh my God – he’s calling pensions of 70 – 90 percent of a worker’s highest year’s earnings a burden on the workers!

To understand how far short this move falls, consider that CalPERS announced Wednesday that it hadn’t hit a 7 percent average over the last 20 years and, going forward, it estimates that there’s only roughly a 1-in- 4 chance that it will meet that target.

And CalPERS’ consultant warns that the pension system should anticipate only an average 6.2 percent in each of the next 10 years.

CalPERS officials rationalize that state and local governments couldn’t afford higher payments that would result from lower investment forecasts.

If that’s true, the solution is to change the system, not keep denying reality.

I believe Little is talking about further raising taxes to float these pensions. That’s why he endorsed Measure K, and that’s why I believe he will back up CARD and eventually the city of Chico when they put their own tax increase measures on the ballot. He refuses to admit that these pensions are unsustainable, period, he just keeps expecting the rest of us to set up these public workers like Phay-rohs!

When are we going to get a real newspaper in this town?

NOTE: I contacted a managing editor at the San Jose Mercury Register – this piece was actually written by one of his co-workers and reprinted by permission in the ER (same owner owns both papers…)

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →