You know how pension apologists claim that only a few abusers get huge pensions and the average government worker only gets a few thousand dollars per month?
Yeah, not so much.
Data from Transparent California show that the average Encinitas employee with a "full career" of 30 years or more is given $94,602 per year for life. And no, it's not just skewed by Mark Muir. The median is almost the same at $93,723.
Want to know why your streets are full of potholes, we don't have any money to build anything at Pacific View, and your city council wants to raise your taxes and fees? Look no further.
Raw data here.
urkkk yackkk
ReplyDeleteBeyond efiing crazy. The good news is that we get to pay for alot of that.
ReplyDeleteAre you ready to shut down the city govt by banging your pots?? If not now when?? Drive them out...
ReplyDeleteOh, geez, the pot-banging moron is back!
DeleteBond, 8k per year, Stocks, 6k per year.
DeletePam Slater Price's 4 years on council leads to a $15k per year pension? Maybe I am misunderstanding? Council stipends are nominal, yet, it seems the pension is large for 4 years work.
ReplyDeleteSomethin' ain't right with Price's numbers. She was a county supervisor for 20 years. Look at Stocks' numbers: $6K and 17 years.
ReplyDeleteTo get a pension in any amount from Encinitas, you have to work for the city for at least five years, right? Or is it four?
How did Muir's pension get to $179K from $176K, which is what it was the last time EU brought pensions to our attention?
Yes, employees contribute to their pensions, but the payouts depend on CalPers' assumptions about return on pension fund investments. If the returns don't meet expectations, the city (ultimately, the taxpayers) is on the hook for the gap.
If the gap happens, the city would presumably sell assets (land, for example) and/or lay off employees to come up with the money to pay the pensions. The city would probably cut services also.
I agree something ain't right. I figured the Slater Price 4 years is her time at the city, and the $15k is the city's share of her total. I assume the total is much higher. Many of these people were in CALPERS before (and after working for the city), so I don't know if the numbers are the city's share or the totals. In fact, the years seem to be total's (except for Slater Price).
ReplyDelete$15K for four years only in Encinitas can't be right for Slater-Price. Look at the numbers for the other former council members: Bond, DuVivier, Hano, Stocks.
DeleteIt's based on your career end salary I believe. So Encinitas pays much more for S-P because she became a supervisor.
DeleteBecause she graduated, so to speak, from Encinitas City Council to county supervisor, and Encinitas was in her supervisorial district?
DeleteI would like like to know if $15k is S-P's total pension or Encinitas' share. I wonder if she was here for 4 years and at county for 20, would we have to pay 4/24 of her pension based on her high ending county salary. It would seem there should be pro-ration of some sort since she did not earn a lot here (and therefore put little into the system). Perhaps a CALPERS expert can explain.
DeleteI think the figure is Slater's full Calpers pension, you can continue to contribute to Calpers once you get in the system.. I doubt that figure is Encinitas full share.
DeleteSome cities have their own pension system, not everyone uses Calpers, but you can role Calpers over from one agency to another if both cities or entities use it....
DeleteLooks like it's her total CalPERS pension, based only on 4 years of service. Not sure how she goosed it so much. SD County has a separate pension system, not part of CalPERS.
Deletehttp://transparentcalifornia.com/pensions/2013/calpers/pamela-c-slater-price/
The county does have a separate system, some people like the former head of NCTD have both a Calpers pension and a county pension.
DeleteI would love to know how she got it up that high (double James Bond, who was in 16 years)
Here is a little change of pace and good news [what ,what] for our community. Last week the Jason St. and Vulcan single family residence that originally wanted to develop the property using current zoning of four units and who after coming out of Planning were convinced to go for the max DB of 7 units, has now gone back to their original intent of four currently zoned units with no DB, and no variances.
ReplyDeleteTheir wonderful neighbors had been so supporting of them at first when they wanted the four units but when they came back from Planning with 7 that blew up in their faces and organized every neighborhood facing similar projects to get them to support their original proposal of four.
We have to thank the owners for realizing that Plannings' push for max DB created an untenable situation that would be years in the making before coming to fruition.
This community is thankful you are a part of the solution and not part of the problem that every neighborhood can face at any time when we have a planning dept. pushing this on almost every project that comes before them.
Nice to have some good news to share for a change. Enjoy.
So how about council adopting an attitude that if it isn't a density bonus project it will be given smooth sailing, and density bonus will be frowned on. Or better yet let the citizens that have units to fill in the quota of affordable housing get amnesty if they come forward, right now the trust to step forward is not present with this council.
ReplyDeletePlease ??? More DB bullshit?? Really?? The city staff is up for a pay raise next year and which council member is going to tell them NO??
DeleteDB my ass!!
6:47PM watch your back. I hope you are not a Fictitious Persona
ReplyDeleteIt's good news, don't kill the messenger....
DeleteIt's good news only because residents citywide went up in arms to help support their Leucadia neighbors. No thanks to Planning, no thanks to the property owners who would be full speed ahead had such an uproar against them not been waged. Said property owners can now look at ruined relationships with their formerly friendly neighbors.
Delete...and no, that's NOT a character from "Kinky Boots".
ReplyDeleteHow do I apply? While my 401K is begging killed, the "public servants"(euphemism) are getting the golden handshake at 55?
ReplyDeleteI'll go ask my boss tomorrow if I can get that kind of deal. Wish me luck!
Current City Council is ignoring the facts and debt of these burdens. Many of the old timers at City Hall are total slackers and do more harm than good at City Hall. City Council needs to adopt a policy that has current old time employees contribute all their 7% contribution and do not give them any raise to accommodate for it. Cut their pay. Force the old useless employees out so we can get some worthwhile employees in our City Hall at the 2% at 55 rate of retirement. Their is a whole large group at City Hall that need to go- like 10 to 20% of the employees. First Employee that needs to be fired is the like long Government Tick - Gus Vina. Send that boy packing home to Sacramento where he can live off our taxes for the rest of his life.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest mistake of Barth, Kranz, and Shaffer was supporting this loser and his total waste of 2 years of Strategic Planning as nothing in the City got done. You all blew it.
Let's not totally lay this one on the current group. Stocks, Bond, Dallager, and Maggie voted in the big increase for all the pension holders. That's why Muir is on the council, to look after his pension and the interests of FF.
DeletePeople are not going to quit when they have this much money coming, and you're not going to force them out, unless you change all the rules like other agencies did and give someone the unilateral power to fire employees.
Lest we forget:
Deletehttp://www.utsandiego.com/news/2005/mar/17/encinitas-workers-get-improved-salaries-benefits/
Only Bond voted no. Yes, was Dallager, Stocks, Houlihan, Guerin
7:19 Dalagher, Stocks and Guerin were all idiots and dumb as crap. Maggie was the only one who had any sense.
DeleteThanks "idiots" for wasting our tax dollars.
1:21 "Maggie was the only one who had any sense" WTF, she voted with them. Please be consistent!
DeleteYup, she voted with the majority at that time at a 60-70% clip....
DeleteIf we look for perfect solutions (lower salaries of the over-paid, etc.), we will end up with no solution. We must do what companies did. First, remove pension for all new employees. Give them a 401k. This does several things, it means in longer term no carrying costs for pensions. Very important, it diminishes the power of people in the pension system, as time goes by, their percent of the workforce goes down. Second, offer a lump sum payment to a 401k for people with less than 10 years work. It won't be a big lump some now, but again puts people in a 401k. Offer a 10% (or similar) raise as an incentive for them to do this. Adjust the formulas to pay less to people in the system with less than 20 years right now. Make sure it is not a "take back" but less credit for FUTURE work. These few things will help out a lot, while still being fair to people (that is, not changing the rules in the middle of the game).
ReplyDelete8:29
Deletehow long since you've been in the work force? This strategy is hugely demoralizing, hurts productivity, and makes employees a flight risk. Reducing long term household financial security when 70% of economic activity is consumer driven is short sighted to say the least.
I don't think it's legally an option to replace Calpers with a 401k. That was one of the things Gaspar initally suggested, and she found out that was not possible.
ReplyDeleteFor me it's two things, the pensions have to be sustainable and the people in the system should be contributing almost all the amounts for their pensions, ie no matching. Additionally, there should be a 10-15 year minimum to fully qualify. No 2% at 50 or 55.
If I'm in the pension system, no way I take a buy out or anything like it unless it's a huge amount. Stocks and the gang royally screwed us on this one folks, it is going to be hard to unwind as all these retirees age....
You can't change it for current union employees, but the council could change it immediately to a 401k for management and new employees.
DeleteBut the council doesn't want to make Gus angry.
You wouldn't like Gus when he's angry.
Exactly, it's called a 403b, but works the same as a 401k. And, yes, you would have to negotiate with the unions. Clearly, the city is not negotiating hard with the city employees. You never hear threat of strike. And, what happens is that the non-Union employees expect the same or better benefits. For health benefits, my work insurance changed it's co-pay from $10 to $30 for a specialist. I wonder what Encinitas city employees co-pays and deductibles are.
DeleteFor God's sake, Masih, don't go on strike!
DeleteYes, what would we do without our curbs/gutters/sidewalks pusher?
Delete7:48pm, that almost sounds like a threat. Could you possibly work in the Planning Dept. and are one of those vina/murphy lapdogs who continue to try push 'infill' every chance you get on an unwilling community?
ReplyDeleteFictitious Persona? At least we know you are monitoring us here.
Just what are you objecting to? Surely you can't deny the premise that your dept. does just what the poster indicated every chance you get. If you don't like this kind of exposure you can always stop pushing density increases whenever you have the chance. We know that is not going to happen until we have a council that will stand up and represent residents for a change.
Too bad there is not one council member or candidate running that has shown such an inclination except for Sheila and Julie. The rest are content to let our cm run us over the cliff.
I guess there must be more threats like 'watch your back' to come from you. More likely you should watch your own back when the residents finally have true representation on the council that is coming whether it is next month or in two years. If you can't recognize which way the wind is blowing and adjust you will not be in a position to threaten anyone before very much longer. Peace out.
9;30- I believe the reference to "fictitious persona" was about a technique that's offered with the city's new P.R. software. Fictitious entities can post on blogs using ap-created responses. It also has a feature where the I.P. addresses cannot be traced. Now that's what I call transparency.
DeleteNo disrespect to that poster, but I would assume the writing would be a little better and clearer from the fictitious app than that post. Let's not let the paraonia run totally wild....
Delete12:05- You sound like the one who is paranoid. I just stated that the software has this feature available. This crap is used by many federal and state agencies for the purpose of molding public opinion.
DeleteDitto the poster below, that was sarcasm intended. I also would not trust our planning department. Everyone in the political sphere is always trying to mold opinion. The fact that we're on here means we all operate with a healthy amount of skepticism, so I think we'll all be ok.
DeleteFictitious personas will be used by one of the consultants hired by the city. The city is spending $250,000 for consultants to get residents to vote for upzoning.
ReplyDelete11:39 PM
Please let us know the name and producer of the city's new P.R. software, and the reason the city needs P.R. software.
The CIA also uses fictitious personas.
Do you still believe that Kirstin "give me upzoning and more bars" Gaspar, Tony "give me a $6000 free trip" Kranz, Teresa "nasty" Barth, Lisa "out in space" Shaffer, and Mark "huh" Muir are looking out for the residents best interests.
Muir is looking In N' Out!
Delete9:30 Relax. I was being sarcastic and sarcasm doesn't translate well on blogs. I apologize.There was no threat intended, but I do not trust our city and I do not trust Planning and no one should. I hope the property owners on Jason have come to their senses. However, that being said, the city IS using software to sell us on the Housing Element, and they are using evil tools to do so.
ReplyDeleteSo here's how you defeat that software: don't go for it, you already know what's going on, tell everyone you know. You're done...
DeleteSo doesn't anyone want to talk about the Building Industry's lawsuit against Encinitas that was filed yesterday? Wonder if Marco is involved, or perhaps our own planning dept. cause they didn;t get their way?
ReplyDeleteWhy? It's pretty clear what each side's position is. Now a court has to decide whether it wants to hear the case, and whether a restraining order is necessary. From my perspective, the BIA is really stretching here and I seriously doubt they will prevail. the best they can hope for is a settlement agreement - which brings us back full circle to our esteemed council. Anybody want to discuss the political ramifications of this lawsuit for the November elections?
Delete- The Sculpin
What are the details of the lawsuit?
DeleteTeresa's idea, reinterpreting laws illegally and violating state law.
DeleteThe Response to her conniving? 31 Pages: Its pretty simple: 3 times during the Density Bonus hearing, Jeff Murphy read all 3 clarifications that the Encinitas City Council cannot alter or change any of the state law: then, just for fun, Glenn Sabine read the appropriate parts warning the council that rounding down is NOT promoting Affordable Housing: THEN, when Jeff and Glenn tried to advise Lisa, as usual, she spoke down to them. Meeting before last, after speaking with Marco, Shaffer tried to backtrack, but couldn't blame it on the Staff, so she asked for a closed door meeting: so Tony, Teresa and Lisa could 'try-on' a couple of weak lies they might trot out in public and when they possibly re-watched the meeting of July 16th, Shaffer saw what we all saw, she is a big fat horse's ass. "I want to make those rich people live next to poor people,in houses the same size!!! I'll show them!" Lisa told her peers! Hopefully, the City won't settle, so a judge can watch the City Council on the video of the 16th as they try to punish property owners with punitive ideas for people who dare to be more ethical and successful that the Council (99% of Encinitas). If only individual council people could be sued for their actions by the State: can you imagine? Teresa would be doing hard labor for decades. Density Bonus is possibly being brought back before the public on 10-22 to give Sheila and Julie one last chance to reinterpret 'What Ever Happened To Baby Julie' for the Desert Rose/Fulvia Street Zealots before 11-4, after which, they will only be remembered by their keepers, Pam Slater Price and Juicy Brucie. Remember, Dogs and Kids don't mix! Hey, D'Ja hear Al Rodbell resigned from the Traffic Commission?
Paragraphs are helpful. So would making a concise point. But I like the erm "Juicy Brucey"....
DeleteThe city has 30 days to respond to the lawsuit. Surely the city will wait to turn in its response until after the election. If the city chooses to NOT defend itself and capitulate to the BIA, there will be a hue and cry heard throughout the city like none heard before. It will be a total sellout to development interests and a thumbing of its nose to the citizens.
DeleteOne example of the weakness of the lawsuit -- The council elected to direct staff to round down on the calculation of base density, as is required in the Municipal Code. The Density Bonus Law only requires rounding up on the bonus calculation. Staff had been rounding up on the base calculation.
Ignore the ravings of Mike Andreen at 6:46 PM. He's a paid shill for the building industry. Please do watch the video on the city website and remember we all have freedom of speech. It's only the city council's action that will be under judicial scrutiny. There's a reason developers have called Encinitas a magnate for density bonus. Staff promoted it. The council put some legal and reasonable restraints on it so Encinitas does not have an unfair burden compared to surrounding cities.
For once, 6:46 does sound a bit like Andreen in that it has no structure, no paragraphs, clever nicknames and rambles all over the place. This will be interesting...
DeleteOMG the rant from 6:46 is a delusional Steven King character, the man has lost his mind. Someone call Jim Babwe
DeleteNow we will find out if Muir and Gaspar have any balls along wiht shaffer and Kranz. Only Graboi and Cameron have the balls to take on Marco the bully
anyone else see those tiny tony signs next to larger Blakespear signs? wonder who Tony is hoping will get him elected in 2016?
You're right, 10:29 PM, this guy or gal sounds just like Johnny Smith in The Dead Zone and we all remember how that turned out.
DeleteOh, the reason that it appears that Encinitas is a magnate for Density Bonus is because all other (approximately 10) approaches to creating any credible affordable housing in Encinitas have been legislatively removed over the last 20 years by various councils: meaning D.B., because its state law and inalterable is now literally the ONLY way left to create affordable product in Encinitas: and, as we've seen, Shaffer, Kranz and Barth working at the bidding of a former County Supervisor who waited until the Silly Season to make their move on D.B.
The City absolutely cannot let this go to court: if it does and the City loses, then the property owners will be emboldened to take on Prop A. Which perhaps, was part of the council majority's plan all along?
As Pam Slater's long tentacles become more increasingly noticeable in this campaign (She interfered in hiding on Prop A and will again on D.B.), one question keeps echoing throughout City Hall: "WHY?"
Imagine you want to retire as a Supervisor, but retain your power and influence: what if you approached a weak candidate and said,"I can guarantee all the necessary money and endorsements you will need to win in the Fall (2012): all you have to do is agree to keep my entire staff employed in your office and allow me (Pam) to give you input on major decisions: would you agree to that David?"
Well, David: did you? Agree? Faustian, claro que no? This is easier to answer than WHY Pam continues to demand fealty from the ETA, the MainStreets, the Town Councils: is it really all just about control? Why?
6:00 am, do you wake up delusional?
Delete6:00 AM- Good morning Mikey.
Delete6:00 — Is Encinitas really a magnate? Who knew?
DeleteDid someone slip us another Mike-O-Din?
DeleteRepeatedly ignoring documented facts: ask Pam how many staff members that worked under her were retained by agreement with Roberts as part of her support for his run? Easy enough. But maybe not for people who prefer Sheila. Just saying.
DeleteWe have such a capable city attorney I'm am sure there is no need to worry. Perhaps this one will bankrupt encinitas, way to go council. Another reason to vote for Graboi and Cameron.
ReplyDeletePlanning department caught in another big lie. Coming soon.
ReplyDeleteWith the advise that will likely be coming from sabine, our council will probably just bend over and take what ever they want and continue to ignore the residents wishes without a fight.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone really think Tony or Catherine will make a difference in standing up to the forces that have been in play for decades? They have been so amenable already and have given no indication that things will be any different.
That is why Sheila and Julie represent such a threat to many at city hall. Our House needs a good cleaning and these two women are the ones to do it.
Sheila and Julie represent a threat to modern life in Encinitas. Sheila hasn't had a job in 20 years and can you imagine Julie in front of a chalk board ruminating on Proust? Can you?
DeleteSounds like both pose a threat to your wallet. The rest of us will benefit.
DeleteA threat to modern life, as in we'll be forced back to the horse and buggy? Strange line of reasoning....
DeleteExcept for the fact that Sheila won't get in, coupled with the fact that she probably wouldn't receive a warm welcome at city hall even if she did. It would be open warfare time just like the last time. Sorry to say it, but I don't think Sheila would be effective at city hall....
ReplyDeleteAnd Gaspar will be? Maybe for the developers maybe....
DeleteHonestly in this election, I'm not excited about any of the three. Tony seems the least offensive to me, and I know many would dissagree. Sheila to me is a non-factor, so with Tony vs. Kristin, it's Tony....Most likely though, Kristin is your mayor, so we'll all suffer together.
DeleteI agree. The candidates were lowbrow.
DeleteI thought we could do better.
There is no difference in the voting records of Kranz and Gaspar except for Pacific View
Deleteonly Cameron offers a different agenda-
If Cameron won't be welcome with open arms by these do nothings at city hall, she has my vote!
DeleteShe won't be welcomed by the other council people, either. You have to have some relationships to get things done, this is the issue there.
DeleteSheila will not win, you're helping Gaspar back in....
no, but Gaspar look good in tights and Cameron looks gross.
ReplyDeleteThat is the way the voters vote!
Shallow Hal.
Sounds like that's the way you vote, aptly-named one.
Delete6:56, I dare you to send WCV your pic in tights.
DeleteI double-dog dare.
DeleteMarco Gonzales had a hand in this, as did Jeff Murphy. Sabine and Vina also played a role, and yet, no one will fire the 3 who did this. Can't fire Marco, but make no mistake about it, he had a huge part in this lawsuit. He said he would sue over Desert Rose. Coast Law also recently joined DEMA and Dave Peck, one of the partners, is not on the Board. The reason that they gave as to why they joined was to monitor the south end of town. Shortly after they joined a pocket park was put in front of their building and thru DEMA they got $3000.00 from the City to make the facade of their building a little nicer.
ReplyDeletePeck was at a special meeting Barth held regarding her re-election chances- clearly they decided they had no shot and the best option was to hope KRanz and Blakespear would appoint Barth
DeletePeck I understand is an ambulance chaser and I understeand Marco suits city's over what appear to be trumped up environmental charges
7:15 here- Should have said Peck IS on the Board of DEMA.
DeletePeople still think Barth wants to be on council past the end of the year, amazing. I can't see it, especially since Tony isn't going to win....but even if he did, I can't see that move...
Delete9:11 Barth desperately wants to be on the council, she realized she would lose the election and so she schemed
Delete1. Let's overpay for Pacific View and use it as an election tool-
2. Let's hold off on Coral Tree farm until the election
3. Let's not disclose our relationship with CB during the Coral tree hearings- oh-oh busted, how is it The Coast News, Advocate and Seaside Rag have not written about that?
But it is all coming down on Barth, Tiny Tony and his Tiny signs are going to lose- CB if elected will tire of Barth quickly and Barth will be on the outside looking in - discredited
That walking group is getting smaller and smaller eh Teresa
Er, Barth isn't running again, and that conspiracy theory about the seat isn't real either. Let's move on......
DeleteMarco for mayor.
ReplyDeleteHe would do much better than these clowns.
Marco would sell this town out from under us faster than you can say "David Meyer."
DeleteI'd prefer zombies running amok instead of that sleaze ball Marco.
DeleteAll he knows how to do is shake down the system for himself.
I think Marco has already sold out....
DeleteDennis Holz for Supreme Benevolent leader....
ReplyDeleteI agree disband city council. They are flawed.?
Deletelike stocks, didn't holz get voted out of office?
ReplyDeleteYes, Holz got voted out. He is now for Kranz.
ReplyDeleteAhhh... Don't you just love the chatter from the lunitic finge?
ReplyDeleteMarco for mayor? Supreme benevolent leader? Disband? These are not real solutions.
WTF?
It's Krans or Gaspar for Mayor and Blakespear or Graboi for council. Period.
Most of us have already voted by now so why all the BS sophmoric comments from those here who think they are so intelectually superior?
Three more weeks of this idiocracy.
I went with the humor on Holtz, I know he's not coming back. I'm going Kranz as the least evil option for mayor, even though I know Kristin will win.
DeleteYou're dead on, most people will have already voted by mail, so this is mostly chatter.
Holz was voted out of office because of Bob Naninga and one of his several ego driven campaigns that never got him into office. Because he split votes, Dallager got in and Guerin scraped back in, and we lost the best council person we ever had.
DeleteHmm, vote splitting and letting a Dallager type in office, why does that sound so familiar?
Kranz needs to bow out. He created the need for Cameron's run in the first place.
DeleteIF HOLTZ WOULDN'T OF RAN AND LOST. BOB NANINGA WOULD'VE WON. QUIT BLAMING OTHERS FOR HOTZ'S BEING A COMPLETE IDIOT!
DeleteHolz was the best guy we ever had. 5 bullet points on the things he did wrong. And quit asking for Kranz to bow out, people have already voted. Statements like that make everyone on this board look less than well informed.
DeleteIn three weeks, Gaspar will be your mayor, so start planning on what you want to say at that point...
Delete8:05 Wonderful. The plastic wrapper can continue to ruin our beautiful city when she lets the developer's in.
DeleteDon't complain when you are not happy about what she will do as mayor, especially if you vote for her.
That is not the kind of mayor we need or want. Dump Gaspar while we can.
I'm 8:05, and I'm def. not voting Gaspar, but with the Tony/Sheila vote split, I know she will get in. All the non-Gaspar people should have been unified behind one candidate. So I was saying you might as well prepare your speeches, because she will get in....
DeleteWent by Dennis Holz's yesterday: the renown environmentalist still had 6 big gas guzzlers parked in his front yard. Sure the neighbors love him. Bob woulda done a better job on the council. Not a lawyer, first of all.
DeleteOh no!! 7:15 figured it all out. DEMA convinced the City to put a pocket park in front of Coast Law when they joined the organization. That's how things in this town work - pay $100 membership fee to a merchant association and get a city park in font of your business. Funny thing is I recall that park being designed and approved by the city long before Coast Law opened shop on 101. Sneaky lawyers must have been scheming for years to pull off this charade. Bang your pots and get rid of the pocket park!
ReplyDeleteThe tragedy is that $250,000 could have been spent in Leucadia for trees and flowers and water lines but went to DEMA instead. Downtown is fine as it is, Leucadia needs attention. But with the KLCC in control, what's their motto?? Oh hey, Keep It crappy.
Deleteand who might the KLCC be?
Delete3:39- all those that hate Leucadia and those that listen to them.....
Delete11:31, Exceedingly tired of your pots, but you're right about the pocket park. It was planned LONG ago and came up frequently at the Tourism Committee meetings. It was a pretty desolate pie of asphalt for sure. But Peder was there too - just like he always was whenever Encinitas needed improving. OK, except for that 5 story idea!
ReplyDeleteAnd let's not forget his Cardiff whopper, too! Give Norby credit where credit is due.
Delete11:59 Interesting that Cardiff was able to get a specific plan passed that does not include up-zoning commercial buildings to residential- call it the keep Marco out of Cardiff Specific Plan
DeleteBarth had nothing to do with saving Cardiff, Norby was outed- Bob Bonde was the voice of reason providing solutions. Thanks Bob
Had Audet not made the damning video of Norby, his "nope, no agreement among residents here" fabrication would have led to the Council adopting his recommendation to hire a design firm to propose plans. In fact, he had several in mind, ready to roll.
DeleteBob's great, but Audet's video made it impossible for Council to reject what Cardiff residents wanted.
Over paid over pensioned. Fire half the staff, slash the pay and pension of the other half. Clean house.
ReplyDeleteI look at this a little differently. It looks like the average pension per year of service is about $2k per year of service. When averaged in aggregate, it's slightly higher $2.3K. This tells me that average is going down per year of retirement. Not a bad thing.
ReplyDeleteOverall, the average pension is $48.7K with an average years of service of 20.74 years.
The highest average year was 2010 - $89.3k average - 24.8 years of service average and $3.6k per year of service. Makes sense since early retirement was an option then. Next highest was 2006 with $73.6k average - 24.8 years of service average and $2.9k per year of service.
Basically, paying out an average of 2k per year in pension for each year of service is not a terrible thing. Especially since many of these pension obligations were funded quite some time ago. The real problem is that after 2010, most pension obligors were strapped and chose either under fund or not fund their obligations - which created a deep hole they had to crawl out of. Basically mismanagement. Sure there was self dealing - sure there was increasing union involvement in having a seat on both sides of the table - but look at the names on this list. How many had any real influence on how much they were going to get? It's the recession that put a knife into this - and mismanagement (or outright denial) twisted it.
- The Sculpin
Sculpin, a $2000 lifetime annuity at age 60 is worth about $35,000.
Deletehttps://www.immediateannuities.com/information/annuity-rates-step-1.html
So the city gives its workers $35,000 in retirement benefits for every year they work.
And the benefits got much more excessive after the Stocks pension boost of 2005, and with salaries rising much higher the past decade.
So if you exclude people who retired prior to 2005, the numbers are actually much worse... and will continue to get worse for years until the new 2% @ 60 hires start retiring decades from now.
And did you remove council members who have tiny pensions and make the average look much lower?
DeleteEU - it's a $2k annuity per year of service, so if you work 10 years it's a $20k annuity. Removing the council members produced an immaterial difference.
Delete- The Sculpin
It was not "the Stocks pension boost." The vote was 4-1. Only Bond voted against it. Houlihan, Stocks and the other two voted for it.
DeleteStocks still defends that pension boost, so he can own it all day long here and over on Rostra.
DeleteTo me the issues are: 1.) are employees funding their own pensions 2.) are the pensions fully funded, or have mismanagement, recession and underfunding screwed up that math.
DeleteThe math needs to account for potential economic downturns, like 2008 and on. Heck, the market is going way down today. You can't count on continued good returns.
That said, thanks for working out the match, Sculpin and WC. Those pension numbers are still pretty big, and as far as I know, they're not fully funded right now.
-MGJ
I meant "Math". I get the hives even trying to spell it..
DeleteAnd I oppose the 2% at whatever age. There should be one pension, only at full retirement.
-MGJ
CalPERS averages returns over past decades, then uses those figures with other assumptions to project future returns. As all analysts caution, past returns do not guarantee future performance.
DeleteCalPERS assumes a certain average return. The problem is if those returns aren't achieved, CalPERS can't pay pensions fully, and the obligation reverts to the employer. For us, it's the city of Encinitas. That's the potential pension bomb.
Sculpin 11:13,
DeleteYes, and a $20k annuity costs $350,000.
11:47- Stocks was, is and always will be an IDIOT!!
Delete2:40 Not only was he an idiot, but arrogant as all hell. Nasty man.
Delete2:53- I had no dealings with him. Only know him from council meetings. I thought then as now he was a fool and an idiot.
DeleteThanks 1:07, and for anyone who still doesn't think Tony does more at NCTD than Stocks, pls see #1 in that pdf.
DeleteThe pension liability is scary, and we need to see a plan in place that addresses the shortfall. Kicking the can down the road is not acceptable.
CalPERS has a trillion dollars invested in the stock and bond market, good luck with replacing it with 401K's. Too much money being made for Wall Sreet money managers to let that go away.
Delete"Currently, eight of the 10 projects in the city’s planning queue are density-bonus projects." — Coast News
ReplyDeleteAll the more reason to vote for Sheila Cameron and Julie Graboi. They are the only two candidates who will stand with residents against our being overrun by high-density housing in Encinitas.
Except neither one of them is going to win, so we're back where we started.
DeleteIf Cameron and Graboi are not elect, does that mean the city wants to continue density bonus and managed development?
ReplyDeleteThere ain't nothing "managed" about the city's handouts to developers.
Delete2:59 The city — meaning council majorities and managerial staff — has always wanted density bonus and other development. It continues and grows the revenue stream so exorbitant staff salaries, benefits and pensions can be paid, and absurdly expensive capital improvement projects and debt service can be funded. Then there's paying for PV, the Rossini Creek toxic runoff fine and other periodic bonehead moves.
DeleteA post by our Parallax fictitious persona. The city is paying a firm to post comments on blogs. Real transparent, isn't it Gus??
ReplyDeleteComments like the one above make it hard to take some of you seriously.
ReplyDeleteYeah? Check the fine print.
DeleteComments like yours explain why the city can get away with it. Even if they are called out people just won't believe. Do your own homework before dismissing reality.
Deletejust eyeballing it, 100 recipients to pages of salaries, it seems to me the median is indeed a few thousand dollars a month at most.
ReplyDeleteYes, because it includes people who only worked a fraction of their career here. Those people have pensions, 401(k)s, and Social Security from their other jobs.
DeleteThat's why it's important to look at what full-career employees get. Which is $94,000 and growing.
How do you know that those people have pensions and 401k from previous jobs? Are you arguing that benefits from previous employers should determine benefits for future employment? How would that work? What kind of job candidate would you expect to recruit under that plan?
DeleteNo. No. No.
DeleteFollow along.
If someone works 1 year for Encinitas, or 5 years, or 10, and then works public or private elsewhere for the rest of their career, the Encinitas portion of their retirement will obviously be small and not in any way representative of the retirement benefits that Encinitas offers.
So it would be either incredibly dishonest or incredibly ignorant to include these short-timers in any average that describes the retirement benefits that Encinitas gives its employees.
Is that so hard to understand?
Two pages, not "to."
ReplyDeleteFollow along? There's no need to be rude. What you are describing is data cherry picking of the same sort you deride when done in defense of market-competitive comp and bennies.
ReplyDeleteWrong. Mixing short-time employees in to make the "average" benefit look lower is intellectually dishonest.
DeleteLooking at the enormous pensions of all career employees is not "data cherry picking."
Using your logic, not normalizing the data to a relevant variable is equally dishonest, and is most definitely cherry picking. Sorry, but it appears that you're applying a double standard here. If you want to argue the merits of pensions and othwr benefits, it's one thing, but don't be surprised when your fuzzy math gets turned around on you.
ReplyDeleteThere is no cherry picking, no double standard, no fuzzy math.
DeleteWhat specifically do you disagree with?
Fwiw, I worked for a fortune 50 company for 4 years, 401k with dollar for dollar stock match up to 6% of my salary, and a pension that was frozen in 2011. That decision led me to leave and take my talents elsewhere. Still, I will receive about 1k per month as a pension on my retirement. Considering everything, Encinitas pensions seem about right for recruiting talent in a competitive market. If the desire is to squeeze the benefits, or to renege on previous committments, Encinitas will have to live with the type of recruits it can manage to bring in compared to other municipalities. Simple enough equation in my book.
ReplyDeleteYou insist that your interpretation is honest, while others are dishonest. IMO BOth approaches (your "average" vs the true arithmetic mean) are of debatable value, and neither addresses the most important aspect of the debate. Numbers games like yours are little more than a not-so-creative distraction.
ReplyDeleteThe important question to me is whether Encinitas will honor past commitments and, if not, are we willing to suffer the consequences in terms of lower quality recruitment and job execution that market theory says will follow such a scofflaw strategy.
Pensions are not needed to recruit the best talent. Offer a comparable Salary with a 401k match and you will have access to more qualified candidates.
Delete9:43,
DeleteThere you go again.
There is no moral equivalence. You want to include people who only worked here for a few years in order to make it look like our pensions are not overly generous
Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see through that, and realizes that the way to look at the retirement benefits that Encinitas offers is to see what long-time employees receive.
Give me a break.
Not true. I refer you to this October 2014 brief by the Boston College Center for Retirement Research.
Deletehttp://crr.bc.edu/briefs/do-public-pensions-help-recruit-and-retain-high-quality-workers/
The brief’s key findings are:
"1. Research shows that pensions help recruit and retain high-quality workers; thus, cutbacks in public pensions could hurt worker quality.
2. One indicator of quality is the wage that a worker can earn in the private sector.
3. Using this measure, states and localities consistently have a “quality gap” – the workers they lose have a higher private sector wage than those they gain.
4. The analysis shows that jurisdictions with relatively generous pensions have smaller quality gaps, meaning they can better maintain a high-quality workforce.
5. The bottom line is that states and localities should be cautious about scaling pensions back too far."
6:20, There YOU go again.
DeleteIf it's such "common sense," then go ahead apply an objective mathematical treatment to the WHOLE data set and prove your point. You have refused to do that, and instaed make assumptions about a subset of the data that you use as a rationalization to exclude numbers you don't like. Cherry Picking (see blow).
Normalization to years of service is one strategy already presented here that quashes your argument. Separating employees by their years of service across different periods of time, might be another objective option.
You, in contrast are working backwards from a desired conclusion and choosing a data treatment that will selectively prove your point.
From Wikipedia:
Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias. Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally. This fallacy is a major problem in public debate.
"go ahead apply an objective mathematical treatment to the WHOLE data set"
DeleteIgnorantly applying a blanket mathematical treatment to a data set without considering underlying differences is the sign of a either a small mind or a deliberate deceiver.
For example, the 2005 pension boost made a huge increase in pension costs and payouts. Yet you would have us ignore the change and lump pre-2005 retirement benefits in with post-2005 retirement benefits.
And salaries were much lower before the 2000s, but you would still lump in the resulting small pre-2000 retirement payouts with today's much higher payouts, which are far more representative of our costs going forward.
So you end up with an "average" which misleads about the benefits current workers are getting. Which is either a really sloppy mistake, or, more likely, deliberately deceitful.
Nice try.
"Ignorantly applying a blanket mathematical treatment to a data set without considering underlying differences is the sign of a either a small mind or a deliberate deceiver."
DeleteFunny how you use the term "ignorant" in your critique. Are you being purposefully ignorant of the woodespread knowledge that statistical treatments are essential in most public policy assessments. If detailed completely when the analysis is reported out, others can judge its validity after the fact and draw their own conclusioons.
You've neither shown your work nor discussed the potential shortcomings in your approach. Instead you assault the integrity of those who analyze data differently than you. Your approach may indeed be valid, but there is no way to determine that when you don't explain your methods beyond some vague assertion that only careerists were considered in your calculations.
Unless it can be defined and understood by the readers, your approach is just cherry picking for political points.
edit: woodspread=widespread. Stupid voice recognition...
DeleteP.S., "Yet you would have us ignore the change and lump pre-2005 retirement benefits in with post-2005 retirement benefits."
DeleteI have suggested nothing of the sort. You are the one touting averages of undefined, cherry picked data.
You insist that your interpretation is honest, while others are dishonest. IMO BOth approaches (your "average" vs the true arithmetic mean) are of debatable value, and neither addresses the most important aspect of the debate. Numbers games like yours are little more than a not-so-creative distraction.
ReplyDeleteThe important question to me is whether Encinitas will honor past commitments and, if not, are we willing to suffer the consequences in terms of lower quality recruitment and job execution that market theory says will follow such a scofflaw strategy.
That is an easy one. Declare the 2005 $tock$ windfall 35% increase to all employees in one night-illegitiment and are let the City go bankrupt. In fact, the City should take on as much debt and get as many big projects done before pulling the cord. $3 million for one life guard tower? I know its a waste of money, but lets get some real projects done.
ReplyDeleteBorrow $30 million and let complete the streets capes. That will do two things, the higher revenue generated from the increased quality of life, property and sales tax will be a source to repay the debt, or we go bankrupt and will be able to negotiate the ridiculous pensions for the many deadwood slackers like Mossi and Vina at City Hall.
City Council needs to wake up and turn this City in the right direction. Hire a real City Manager and watch Encinitas reach its full potential which would make Del Mar look like Vista IMHO.
Deadwood slackers. Nicely dehumanizing. Why bother playing pension games? Tasing them until they leave seems more efficient.
DeleteIt's interesting that you think street paving will provide enough of an economic bump to lead to debt repayment, but increased financial stability for workers will not. Personally, no matter how smooth the roads are, I tend to shop less and go to fewer restaurants when my paycheck is cut.
Your stance seems more like someone wanting the city to make their selfish, sheltered life more visually pleasing on the backs of public sector employees.
.
P.S., it would be easier to take you seriously if you would use proper sentence construction and knock off the silly spelling of people's names. Do you say "Democrat Party" too?
Someone with your communication skills advocating for lower quality education as a money saving device is beyond ironic.
5:40 Leucadia Streetscape cannot increase sales tax revenue and boost property values without adding much more parking in the 101 corridor. The plan adds only 12 spaces over 2.4 miles.
DeleteIf I get the time, I may run the numbers and post the results, but here is how I would evaluate staff costs for the City:
ReplyDelete1.) Calculate the annual average fully burdened cost per FTE. Fully burdened cost includes: salary, health benefits, retirement benefits, any other subsidized benefits, training and education costs, travel expenses--basically, take all current FY costs associated with staff, and divide by total FTEs to get an average burdened cost per FTE. I'd also like to see this cost with and without pension underfunding.
2.) Run the same calculation in #1 fir each of the last 10 years to plot trend.
3.) Multiply the average annual burdened cost per FTE, by the actual number of FTEs for each year in the series, to show the trend of total staff costs.
4.) Divide the total staff costs in 3.) by the Encinitas population for each year to show the trend of burdened staff cost per capita.
5.) Now add context. Run the same calculations in 1-4 for a basket of peer group cities (pre-selected, not cherry-picked post hoc). Also, look for other benchmark indicators of public sector muni staff costs, and/or simple COLA or CPI inflation indices.
6.) Now you'd have a clear view of your local labor costs: absolute value, growth rate, per employee and total, per capita--and all of it compared to towns with similar demographics, as well as inflation benchmarks.
Only then would you have a clear picture of where we stand. My guess is you'd end up with a mixed bag. Some of the compares would be favorable--others not. But I would be surprised if we were way outside the mainstream on either absolute costs or growth rates.
All the data to do this can be found in the CAFR on the city website. It just takes a lot of time.
Pension critics aren't saying Encinitas is out of line with other cities.
DeleteThey are saying California city workers in general are way over-paid and over-pensioned compared to private sector workers with comparable skills and responsibilities.
o.k., now we're getting somewhere! I call bullshit on that argument, since the goals of the private sector are vastly different than those of the public sector. Profits vs. quality of life, anyone?
DeleteMmm-hmmm... because government workers are so much more important to our quality of life than the people who provide the goods and services we buy, they're entitled to so much more money.
DeleteI see how it works now.
EU,
DeleteActually "Pension Critics" (you), have NOT been saying this is a California state problem. I direct you to your own links at the left of every page:
Encinitas Government 101
Encinitas is broke and badly mismanaged
Average city worker makes $92K + $36K in benefits
Average city retiree gets $94k per year for life
There is still no plan to deal with pension costs
You have framed the problem over and over as a problem that is specific and unique to Encinitas. If it's a state problem, you need to spin up a new blog call California Undercover, or Sacramento Undercover.
It's rather difficult to solve state-wide problems on a local level. If you disagree, then show me the city that's doing it.
Wrong again. I never framed anything as this being specific and unique to Encinitas. Go through the links and read them.
DeleteHere for example, where I compare not to other cities' government workers, but to Encinitas private workers:
http://encinitasundercover.blogspot.com/2014/02/average-encinitas-government-worker.html
I cover what Encinitas policymakers do and say because this is where I live. I don't have the resources to cover every municipality in the state, nor do I have unique insight on the state overall that would make California Undercover worth reading.
This is getting tiresome. You recite union talking points, you completely mischaracterize my position.
Let's just agree that we're not going to convince each other. You are happy with and entitled to your pension. I'm happy for you.
Ah, no. You are talking to a private sector capitalist pig with a 401K and IRA defined contribution plans. I believe the public sector retirements should be bridged over from defined benefit plans the same way mine was in the early 90s. Older workers were grandfathered. Intermediate-age workers were given the choice to either keep the pension plan, or accept a lump sum transfer into an IRA, and open a new 401K (the option I took). New hires were given no choice--401K only.
DeleteHowever, there are union contracts that make such a transition impossible in California, at least until the PERS system runs dry or courts impose new terms under BK.
Until that day, all I ask of our elected officials is that they not perform worse than their peers.
8:55
ReplyDeletelet's see when there's an infectious disease outbreak and all you have are non-union health care and emergency response teams.
That's Texas in a nutshell.
ReplyDelete