The OC Register has an updated list of pension millionaires, and Mark Muir is King of Encinitas:
|
Last employer | Retired | Monthly allowance | Annualized benefit | |
| CITY OF ENCINITAS | 11/9/2011 | $14,640.20 | $175,682.40 | ||
| DONALD G HEISER | CITY OF ENCINITAS | 7/1/2006 | $12,757.56 | $153,090.72 | |
| JOSEPH W BUNN | CITY OF ENCINITAS | 7/1/2010 | $12,402.05 | $148,824.60 | |
| TALMADGE F TUFTS | CITY OF ENCINITAS | 12/31/2005 | $10,194.02 | $122,328.24 | |
| DARLENE R HILL | CITY OF ENCINITAS | 12/31/2009 | $8,937.04 | $107,244.48 | |
| ROBERT M ROMERO | CITY OF ENCINITAS | 12/31/2009 | $8,766.36 | $105,196.32 | |
| GARY A REEVE | CITY OF ENCINITAS | 1/2/2002 | $8,677.20 | $104,126.40 | |
| DAVID L MOORE | CITY OF ENCINITAS | 7/1/2007 | $8,419.92 | $101,039.04 |
Gary Reeve is not doing too badly either, having retired 11 years ago and already pulled down more than a million.
What if some of these people live to 90?
Beyond absurd.
ReplyDeleteThats funny because his prised fire departmrnt took over 17 minutes to get to the shooting right next door to his house. Wonder how long it would take if he was shot? I timed it from the time i heard the shots
Deletemakes me sick. All of you can read and write. How'd that happen? A teacher taught you. What do THEY get?
ReplyDeleteMark is a real heavyweight!
ReplyDeleteSeriously, I would bet against the actuarial assumptions in his specific case. The present value of his pension benefits are waaay overstated :)
Now are you ready to bring out the flaming torches and pitch forks??
ReplyDeleteRemember this, the sheriffs will defend these guys to their dying day because if these guys lose their pensions so do the sheriffs. Don't expect any sympathy from the cops when they haul you off to jail.
The system is rigged and Muir, Barth and Schaffer will keep feeding the kitty until it rolls over dead. Detroit here we come... Right Loser??
Nearly 1/3 of COE workers pull down $100K plus per year. It won't be long before the pensions make up 50% of the cities budget. Road maintainance...ha !!! Landscaping ...ha!! Parks....ha!! Streetscape .... Ha ha.
The fire chief gets paid $3500 per firefighter. So he earns $250K per year an equivalent salary for the captain of an aircraft carrier would be $17.5 MILLION. All city employees are over paid and over pensioned.
Fire Barth, Muir, Gaspar, Krantz, Schaffer
Go back to county rule. Wonder why La Jolla never incorporated? Answer above. It's not a matter of if we go bankrupt but when. The deflationary spiral will not allow inflation to save the day. Live n learn.
DeleteLa Jolla is under City of San Diego. Please educate yourself.
DeleteLa Jolla tried to incorporate and even with their tax base saw limitations was the point. The city's ace to build up like Mahattan beach has been taken away and unless immediate pension reform and cost cutting is inacted Encinitas will go under, just a matter of time. They will try something to build up but the voters won't ever allow it. So the gauntlet of pension reform is before them and they must act or we will one day be back under county rule after bankruptcy.
DeleteBy next year, other recent retirees like Scott Henry and Patrick Murphy will be on the list. Since they just retired, they have not hit the $100,000...yet.
ReplyDeleteThis is what the people who work at the City mean when they speak of 'sustainability.' The issue is how to make sure that we can keep paying them!
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely correct. This is exactly what the cookie jar at city hall has offered them. While everyone was out surfing, they were busy stealing. Almost comical the biggest thief of all now sits on the council!
DeleteWith respect to our City Manager, the fact that he is paid far more than "average," particularly as a "new hire," was documented by the UT Watchdog: http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/Nov/03/city-manager-pay-averages-204000/
ReplyDelete"The biggest percentage hike came in Encinitas, which hired a new city manager and boosted base pay by 20.2 percent from what it was in 2010, raising it from $180,000 a year to $216,399. . . Gus Vina could not be reached for comment."
If you look at the link provided, you'll see that San Marcos, which has a similar number of employees, 237, compared to 236 for Encinitas, but an overall budget for 2011-2012 of $260.1 Million, compared to Encinitas with an overall budget of $89.2 Million, paid it's predecessor, 2010 City Manager $242,652, but this amount was reduced when a new City Manager was brought in for 2011-2012, who was paid only $189,000. Conversely, Phil Cotton made $180,000 as base pay in 2010, and Gus Vina is shown as making $216,300, for 2011-2012, which I understand is now raised to $226,000? Why the disconnect between the number of employees, the compensation of a newly hired, untried City Manager, Gus Vina, who left Sacramento with a vote of No Confidence from City Council there, and the extreme difference between the overall budgets of San Marcos and Encinitas?
Another way to compare is to look at the City of San Diego. There, the City manager of a city with 10,108 employees, and an overall budget of $2.75 BILLION, paid its City Manager $250,001 for 2010 and 2011-2012.
Please, review the chart, through the link, above, and check out the facts for yourself.
This may be why Gus keeps hiring more people that we don't need! This way he can justify the higher salary.
DeleteI look at it another way. He has been unable to stay within his budget or do the job he was hired to do without bringining in more people or hiring consultants.
How Gus got himself an 'excellent' job review is simple. The directors who he hired, who he chose to be future members of this 'millionaires club' are the ones who evaluated him. They are beholden to him since they report to him and they need to hang out to get the pensions listed above. Most directors make around $160,000!
The Council only needs to evaluate 2 people. I think it was a conflict of interest to let the people Gus hired and who Glenn Sabine protects give the performance reviews for Gus and Glenn.
Never mind conflict of interest, it is a plainly rigged review process. NOWHERE in the rest of the working world does one's performance review rest with the people he/she hired. NOWHERE.
DeleteThat the entire council thought this review approach made sense is very, very odd. Does Vina swing a little pendulum in front of their eyes to get them to defy reason, or what?
Who are all those name? never heard of them. Must be fire department. That group will bankrupt the City.
ReplyDeleteI say lets go back to voluntary fire fighters. and paid EMTs.
There are very few fires in our City.
Next time you or someone you love needs to be safely extricated from a crushed car, remember those words.
DeleteFool.
Fire fighters love to go to work for two days.
ReplyDeleteAnd then love to hang out at the beach the rest of the time.
what an awesome job. Should have been a fire fighter.
No wonder our City is broke and there is no money for any projects. All the money goes towards pensions, salaries and health care plans.
ReplyDeleteSad because the staff has never done shit to improve our town.
the only improvement comes when citizens demand action.
Pathetic.
Scott Henry just retired after serving one year as fire chief following muirs departure. Preliminary reports are that he earn $210,000 as fire chief, a significant raise from what muir earned. I'll bet henry is stoked
ReplyDeleteUS Census data and Marr's employee numbers:
ReplyDeleteSan Marcos population / number of employees
85,022 / 237 = one employee per 359 people
Encinitas population / number of employees
60,400 / 237 = one employee per 259 people
Is that what "high density" means?
So move to San Marcos. Simple, no?
DeleteWhat is the average educational attainment for San Marcos residents? Literacy rate? Unemployment rate? REsidents per ousehold? Average yearly income? Average commute time? House price? Daily temperature? Number of wildfires? Median number of homes per neighborhood? Property and violent crime rates?
DeleteSan Marcos and Encinitas aren't even in the same universe. Apples and Oranges.
Civil service these days means feathering your own nest at the taxpayers' expense. These outrageous pensions are absurd and keep adding to the underfunded debt of the city. The only reform will come with voter initiatives - this city council won't touch that sacred pension cow. Incorporation just brought on the robber barrons - civil "servants".
ReplyDeleteI 'll sign and vote for any voter initiative that reduces, cuts or eliminates pensions by 75%.
DeleteTaxpayers control the money .
Civil service is one of the few places in the country where you can still have the chance to retire with dignity. Take that away and you'll deserve to be served by the kind of people who 1) aren't adequately educated or experienced and 2) are willing to put up with crap from selfish Saturday Morning Quarterbacks throughout their careers, and eat catfood in retirement.
DeleteIf retiring with dignity is now considered "feathering one's nest" this country is screwed.
DeleteRepeal prop 13.
If $170,000 at 55 is now considered "retiring with dignity" this country is screwed.
DeleteBan public employee union contributions to politicians.
WCV
Just a note that the pensions of Muir etc. were already in place before the current council majority. This is isn't a new situation, remember Phil Cotton and his predecessor. Definitely something that needs to be looked at, but not really sure you can hang it on some of the recent council members.
ReplyDeleteTrue, but this council hasn't done anything to the next generation of pension kings.
DeleteThe Stocks council in its last year made a modest pension cut for new hires, but they still get a way better retirement deal than the taxpayers who pay their salaries.
This council could immediately cut the pensions of management fatcats like the soon-to-be multimillionaire next fire chief, but they don't want to.
Voice of San Diego has an article about Filthy Filner hanging on to get an extra $20k pension. But even if he gets that, his pension won't be anywhere close to Muir's. Why does a small-town fire chief get a pension at 55 that is almost double what a big-city mayor and long-time Congressman gets at 70? Something is WAAAY out of whack here and our council doesn't care.
WCV
this council did their best to do the minimum necessary to claim they looked at the pension underfunding. Then turned around and did nothing about it, when they could.
DeleteCouncil "unanimously" approve new Fire Chief's paid salary at its current level when they approved the recent budget. If they wanted to cut the salary, they would have done it then.
ReplyDeleteThank you COE firefighter. Hey why do you guys let everything burn to the ground??
DeleteFire chief. Yes it is in the title, FIRE him! Take away these insane pensions, why is this tolerated?
DeleteIt's tolerated because only the tiniest of a percent of residents know there's an issue and only a smaller-yet number bother writing city hall to complain. Distill that down to "the usual suspects" who actually show up at city hall/council members and you have your answer.
ReplyDeleteOh, and add to that a city manager who works actively to marginalize those visibly vocal "suspects." Council members are all to ready to buy his efforts and now your circle of tolerance is complete.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteFREDAugust 5, 2013 at 1:01 PM
Late last year one evening around 10pm I was driving south on N Coast Hwy 101. As I passed El Portal St., someone ran the stop sign at a fairly high rate of speed. The impact totaled my van. Fortunately, no one was hurt. Had they hit a pedestrian the story would probably have been very different.
Two months ago I was driving west on Encinitas Blvd approaching the ECR intersection. A large semi truck was stopped on my left side obscuring my vision toward the left, so I approached the green light slowly in case anything suddenly appeared out of nowhere from my left. And just before I got to the intersection, a barrage of flashing lights went off warning me to slow down further. They were the flashes from the red light cameras going off. Then I saw why.
Another truck was running a red light crossing right in front of me. Lucky me I was ahead of the pack of cars and wasn't relying in the green light to sail through the intersection as many do. I hope the offender pays his ticket and it teaches him the expensive lesson to pay more attention when he drives. 1000 people died from unnecessary collisions in U.S. intersections last year.
Inherently, roundabouts neither have red lights nor red light cameras; force people to slow down and seldom make possible T-bone accidents or death. So until every major intersection in this city is a roundabout, I fully support placing red light cameras at all of them. Why?
#1. Safety.
#2 To help pay the enormous costs of running this city which will obviously never change and only become more expensive as time goes by. That's just the way our government is geared.
#3. If such cameras are removed, accidents will increase and the city will find new ways to fill their piggy bank at the public's expense.
(Air quality, less gas consumption, travel efficiency and beautification etc are secondary but other valid reasons)
But here's a few examples of rising costs imposed on citizens from my tiny perspective:
* Two years ago in Encinitas, the cost of doing business went up for (at least) 275 businesses. And not a little. For 20 years we paid $45 for a business license. It's now $379.
* At the state level, the license for selling antiques went from $10. every two years to $300. every two years. A few months back I got a bill for $300 to renew our license. I sent in a check. A few weeks later the Sheriff's dept sent my check back saying "You owe us an extra $288 for the one time fee of a new bill that passed last year" so I wrote them a new check for $588.
* Last year nearly every business along N 101 was contacted because they needed to install a "backflow unit" to their water supply system. Those cost us each roughly from $2000 to $8000 depending on how much the property owner shopped around for the best deal.
Some claim that the yellow lights at red light camera intersections are deliberately of short duration to increase tickets. Of course if that's true that's underhanded and needs correction. But that claim first needs proof (which wouldn't be hard to get) instead of a few driver's opinions. Timed video comparison would be one way, but I'm sure the city staff knows the legal length of time for yellow lights at any given controlled intersection within the city.
There was never an actual plan to install more traffic signals. After nearly two thirds of the people taking the City Hall survey "voted" against roundabouts and lane elimination for motorists, after a couple more open houses, about a year later, another survey was taken, not so well attended by the thousand plus who had signed the petition against roundabouts. Then the only alternative to roundabouts was traffic signals, on the survey. There was no alternative of no one-lane roundabouts and no traffic signals. The questions and answers were skewed, intentionally.
DeleteBut traffic signals or stop signs are not called for on North 101 according to ten year traffic statistics comparing collisions there and at similar intersections in California, discussed by City staff in the July 18, 2012 Agenda Report.
Traffic signals vs. four one-lane roundabouts is a false alternative, more false logic.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWhat's illogical about stop signs and stop lights naturally increasing on 101? Happened big time with Solana Beach's recent streetscape. The new light at Pacific Station or Swami's weren't on the books at city hall 10 years ago either. Doesn't mean they or more stops won't be installed just because of a master plan. My experience is that almost every business on a corner has wanted a stop sign on N. 101. Another vocal resident has asked council to put stop signs at 9 streets on N. 101.
DeleteBut where are you going with this? Would you prefer that all residents west of 101 continue to risk life and limb where they must make a left to get onto 101? (Rather than have a stop sign, stop light or roundabout making it easier?) Or would you just prefer more stop signs or lights too?
Fred, the stop light at Leucadia Blvd. helps to create a break in traffic so that one can more easily turn left.
DeleteEliminating an entire lane for motorists, besides being illegal according to Coastal Act Law before getting a Coastal Development Permit and Local Coastal Program amendment, appealable to the Coastal Commission, certainly doesn't HELP the left hand turn situation. It's not necessary to install four one-way roundabouts because it's challenging to turn left. Open two lanes back up going north-bound. Locals do know how to get out safely, but the lane elimination for motorists has not helped matters any!
The pedestrian undergrounded walkway was what necessitated another traffic signal at Swami's, along with another lane elimination for motorists, there, again without going through the proper channels, apparently. Although perhaps, in that case, the City did get a negative environmental impact declaration for that South Highway 101 lane elimination, as part of the pedestrian/bicycle underpass?
DeleteI could actually envision one more stop sign at Grand View, that would allow u-turns, would help people wanting to turn left, would slow down traffic. I know, I know, you think roundabouts are so superior to stop signs, but they are not better for bicyclists, as I've demonstrated through the links I shared on this blog, and before, with Council.
MANY roundabouts have later had to have traffic signals added to them, or stop signs. There's never any guarantee that couldn't happen here, too. So installing roundabouts doesn't prevent more stop signs or traffic signals, either. More false logic.
Plus Grandview could be a good place for an at grade RR crossings, due to the Grandview Beach access. This crossing would be for bicyclists and pedestrians. And Neptune ends after Grandview, so people accessing or egressing the beach there, in cars, could more easily do so. Throwing the specter of more and more traffic signals at us isn't fair. Our choice doesn't have to be between four one-lane roundabouts and more traffic signals. That was the ONLY alternative offered for the last, twisted "survey" taken at the Community Center.
Hey, that second survey would be like Prop A's passing, and then the City's saying, oh well, we don't care; we're going to have more workshops and open houses, and have another public vote, and we'll do everything in our power to defeat what the majority of voters have already demonstrated they wanted, to check growth and maintain local control, by the people, NOT by politicians and bureaucrats.
You got it Fred, Traffic Signals kill.
ReplyDeleteBut don't try and convince Lword of that, her skull is as thick as 10 feet of tar in the freezer.
You woke me up for that? Snore.
DeleteCouncil needs to get some integrity and start addressing issues instead of years endless planning.
ReplyDeleteHeres an idea- plan and act all in the same week... spend about 10% of your time planning and 90% of your time acting. Not vice versa.
Sacramento Gus loves it, he is 8 months closer to retirement. His plan is to implement a program to talk about planning for 1 year 4 months more until he retires. In about 8 more months at the end of this strategic planning waste of time, he will announce his retirement. Then Council will feel its not worth firing him at that point.
Well played Sad Sac! You pulled the wool over the City Councils eyes and put the screws to the Encinitas Taxpayer. You win and we all lose. Thanks for nothing- City Council.
Yes, when Vina told the council his "passion" was strategic planning, they lapped it up. Funny this passion occurred to him suddenly after how many years on the job? He didn't say "As you know, my passion is...," or "One of the reasons you hired me was...," he announced it like he suddenly remembered his love for strategic planning and thought they might like to give him free rein to plan our future.
ReplyDeleteAnd they did. The lack of common sense on the council is perfect for Vina, who can lead them anywhere he chooses. They do not seem to have challenged him yet on any of his suggestions and that is scary and negligent on the council's part.
Vina's strategic planning for stockton backfired. He was the mastermind in stockton.
Delete'Stategic planning' is not supposed to start with the best stragegic plan for 1 person--Gus Vina! It looks like he is trying to coast to his pension with the greatest payout possible.
DeleteFrom what I have observed, Vina berates any council member who asks questions for not being "a team player," unless they go along with him. He reports to you City Council--not the other way around.
What the leadership should be doing is looking at residents who already live in Encinitas and develop plans based on our needs--not his. The largest percentage of Encinitas residents are 50 or older. Even in youthful Encinitas, must of us are not interested in party busses, vertical, high-density apartments to live in, or funding a league sports park for residents outside of the area. Overall, you are looking at a group of fiscally conservative people who scrimp and save in their own lives, yet are sent the city bills for things that we never wanted.
Most people I know want to preserve open space, keep a laid back, small town look and feel, age in place in their own homes, and have a park that residents can use for individual and family enjoyment.
From Teresa Barth, to me, excerpted from her e-mail dated August 6:
Delete"As to your complaints about the council's Strategic Plan workshops. Perhaps we didn't make it clear that these workshops were intended to allow the council and staff to get to know each other better and develop a positive working relationship, especially since most of the department heads are new. The workshops were also intended to allow the council to develop the frame work for public discussion on the Strategic Plan. All of the workshops were tape recorded and copies of the audio are available to the public."
[Audo recordings not also recorded through Granicus, as webcasts, are only available through a CPRA (California Public Records Act) request. Also, most of us don't want to download a four hour plus special strategic planning meeting onto our computers, part of the meeting taking place during Council's specially served luncheon. One can purchase a CD, or sometimes borrow a CD, but when I listened to a recording of a city manager and city attorney evaluation subcommittee, the MP3 file was automatically copied onto my hardrive, for some reason, not sure why.]
"The public will have numerous opportunities to discuss, comment, agree/disagree with the topics. You can read more about the topics from the link on the city's website homepage. A more detailed schedule of meetings will be presented at a future council meeting."
Agreed.
ReplyDelete10:30 stated the majority's view. It's not in the council's or staff's interest to pursue the majority's view with action and policy.
ReplyDeleteThen get council and staff who are interested in what we want, before it is too late. Our city will be ruined and broke, council will be unable to face their voters, and the staff will not be able to collect their pensions if the city goes bankrupt. Turning us into Pacific Beach is not the answer.
DeleteRuined and broke... That's correct and current and past council members and high priced staff and retirees will be hunted down and driven out of town. It won't be pretty.
DeleteWe thought that's what we were getting with Tony and Lisa, with the long-suffering Teresa just waiting for them to take office so they would have the council members needed to carry out what the majority does want.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the three of them pretty much immediately forgot who THEY were working for, turned developer-friendly, belligerent towards their supporters, and non-responsive in their communications.
So...now what? Whom should we trust next? It's a concern that we were so wrong about them, with no warning signs.
Question: What turned Barth, Shaffer and Kranz against Prop A and, for the most part, for development?
DeleteAnswer: They looked at the City's current and projected financial picture.
The City needs revenue now and in the future. Eighty-one percent of the general fund comes from property and sales taxes.
What produces continually increasing tax revenues?
More and bigger development!
What slows and limits development?
Prop A, which was supported by the majority of people who voted. And that majority would have been much greater if the opponents hadn't waged such an expensive, negative and deceptive campaign.
That's it exactly! May I copy and post as needed until people get it? Not the folks at city hall, it's not a convenient truth for them...but for anyone else not profiting from the COE gravy train?
DeleteYes, let the truth go viral!
DeleteDump this entire council.
ReplyDeleteWhy don't YOU step up and ran?
ReplyDeleteWe will....
ReplyDelete