THIS IS AN ARCHIVE OF LAKE TAHOE NEWS, WHICH WAS OPERATIONAL FROM 2009-2018. IT IS FREELY AVAILABLE FOR RESEARCH. THE WEBSITE IS NO LONGER UPDATED WITH NEW ARTICLES.

S. Tahoe employee benefits may be decided by voters


image_pdfimage_print

By Kathryn Reed

Voters may have a chance to weigh-in on what they think employees in South Lake Tahoe should get when it comes to pensions and health care benefits.

sltAn idea broached by Mayor Hal Cole earlier this spring came before the full council Tuesday. The five agreed if the necessary concessions the city needs from its seven bargaining units aren’t achieved, the issues will go to the voters in February – when the presidential primary takes place.

In 2002-03, South Tahoe paid $1.1 million into the California Public Employees Retirement System. That figure is expected to increase to $4.7 million for the 2011-12 fiscal year.

While City Attorney Patrick Enright was quick to not single out South Lake Tahoe, saying other cities are in the same boat, he did point out employees in many other cities are making concessions, and where they aren’t, that particular city is trying to take the upper hand.

The more than four time increase to PERS is the result of bad investments, more retirees and an increase in benefits for some retirees.

Most South Tahoe employees don’t contribute a dime to their retirement. The city is paying its share as well as the employees’. It wasn’t until a couple years ago public safety started paying a small percentage.

The employee share to CalPERS is 8 to 9 percent.

When Councilman Tom Davis, who was on the council for 12 years before being elected again in November, asked, “Why are we paying the 9 percent?” Enright said, “Because we agreed to it.”

The “we” is actually the council. They make all the final decisions when it comes to voting on salary and benefits packages for rank and file employees.

But that 9 percent is just a pittance of what the city pays for employee pensions.

The city’s share for tier 1 fire employees in 2010-11 is 40.91 percent and will grow to 47.62 percent for 2011-12.

That means the city is paying more than 50 percent of a firefighters’ salary into the retirement system.

This type of compensation is similar for all employees in the city.

So, if someone has a salary of $60,000 – the city is paying another $30,000-plus into their retirement.

It has changed, though, to where there are two other tiers, meaning new hires don’t have it so cushy. Tier 3 firefighters this fiscal year have the city paying 17.36 into PERS and 22.19 percent for next fiscal year.

“Assume they retire at 50 and assume they live to 80, they will be paid out by the city for 30 years, when they worked 25, so they get more paid to them in retirement than they did on the job,” City Manager Tony O’Rourke said after the meeting of most employees. “And they are guaranteed cost of living adjustments.”

Public employees are guaranteed a set retirement figure based on years worked and their last highest salary.

This compares to the private sector that may rely on a 401(k) – which is not something employers have to offer – and Social Security. The normal range for an employer contribution to a 401(k) is 3 percent to 7 percent. Then the employee must also deal with the fluctuations of the stock market. Sometimes they have few if any options for where the money is invested.

On the public sector side it didn’t matter that CalPERS lost 30 percent in the market one year. Cities had to make up those losses. Cities is the same as taxpayers. The employees saw no loss, felt no financial burden.

Eleven percent of South Lake Tahoe’s general fund goes to pension expenses, while another 18 percent is for employee health care.

As those costs rise, it cuts into basic services – like roads, upgrades to software that would allow the city to operate more efficiently, repairs to equipment that might put more snowplows on the road or even allow more employees to be hired to assist residents.

Also on the private sector side is Social Security. In the recent past, employees contributed 6.2 percent of their wages to Social Security. For 2011, that has dropped to 4.2 percent. Employers still pay 6. 2 percent. Self-employed people pay the combined amount.

When it comes to health benefits, anyone hired by South Lake Tahoe prior to 2008 who works for 25 or more years will receive health benefits for free for the rest of their lives upon retiring. So will their dependents.

It costs the city $1.9 million a year for the 130 retirees – a dollar amount that grows each year. The city pays about $15,000 per year on each retiree for health benefits. Of the city’s retirees, 58 percent don’t cough up a penny for health benefits.

On average, employees pay 4.6 percent of their health care costs, while the city is picking up 95.4 percent.

Even Councilwoman Claire Fortier chimed in how her monthly paycheck for being on the council amounted to about $1,000, while the health benefits were about $9,000. Though she didn’t elaborate what time period this was for.

In the private and public sectors, the employer and employee each pay 1.45 percent of the employees’ wage for Medicare.

South Lake Tahoe spends 78 percent of its general fund on employee related expenses. In the five-year budget plan that was adopted earlier this year, that percentage is slated to drop to 74.

To get there, the city is asking employees to change their contract. The miscellaneous/public works employees’ contract is up this fall, while the other six expire in a little more than a year.

Jere Copeland, who represents some of the unions, said June 7, “The best route is to bargain with your unions.”

While that was the overriding sentiment of the council, they still took the step to place the CalPERS and health care contributions on the February ballot if the unions don’t come through as needed.

For the 2011-12 budget, the council is banking on $1.5 million in employee concessions. If that doesn’t happen, more jobs and more services will be cut.

Meeting between city staff and employee groups are scheduled this month.

If the two sides don’t come to an equitable agreement, then language will be drafted for voters to decide what city employees should get for compensation regarding benefits. If the unions don’t agree to it, the city has the power to impose the will of the voters.

image_pdfimage_print

About author

This article was written by admin

Comments

Comments (22)
  1. Concerned says - Posted: June 8, 2011

    Since a Firefighter retires at 50 years of age, and full medical for his family in the City. That 47% will only get bigger. The City wanted control of their police, fire and roads-now they cant afford it because they have offered such lucrative packages. Let the public vote.

  2. tahoeadvocate says - Posted: June 8, 2011

    The city should change its structure to only have a few employees who manage subcontracted services. Compete contracts for fire protection, police, snowplowing, road maintenance, etc. and you’ll see city costs reduced while eliminating all the employee negotitations. Put people on private industry payrolls which compete for city business.

  3. Steve says - Posted: June 8, 2011

    It is no wonder the city’s streets are in such poor shape. Way too much priority and funds are being bestowed on the extraordinary benefits to its employees. The basic function of the city is in need of immediate revision before it becomes even more irrelevant to all but its well treated staff.

    A prudent option may be simply to dissolve it and eliminate the duplicity and excessive layers of overlapping bureaucracy. Higher taxes are not the solution.

  4. dryclean says - Posted: June 8, 2011

    Anyone know which council ( year and council-people )approved these benefits and retirement pay policies?

  5. Parker says - Posted: June 8, 2011

    FYI, I know of instances where retired City Employees are receiving 101%!! of the what they made when they were working for the City!! That is not a typo!! And that’s not something that occurred many years ago. The City agreed to those outrageous packages after the economy tanked!

    To quote, yes to quote!, one of those retirees, “I’d sure be angry if I was a taxpayer!’

    Now before someone chimes in that bringing this up is just a case of envy-Heck I’m glad for them! The ones I know are a good people. But when the City cries poor and says there’s no money for certain things such as roads or new snow removal equipment, and in fact says, and will say again soon, that they’ll need to raise our taxes because they’re broke and they’ve cut back everywhere they can, I hope people remember this fact, I’ll say it again, some retirees are getting 101% of they’re final salaries!!

  6. tahoegal says - Posted: June 8, 2011

    oh goody, now lets vote on any stipend or health benefit that council members get. Also, those who put the Tahole in place for all of us to enjoy should not have one single benefit. They have cost the community enough.

  7. really??!! says - Posted: June 8, 2011

    I agree with Tahoegal completely. It’s amazing to me that the City Manager and the City Council members are working on ways to cut public safety benefits, pay, increase their PERS contributions, etc…while at the same time not agreeing to take ANY cuts themselves. Typical politicians.

  8. T. MICHAEL LEE says - Posted: June 8, 2011

    Is it true 80% of our local revenues go to pensions? If so, how can a city or any business continue this policy. Maybe a mandatory savings by the employee to help offset pension costs.
    I would love to vote on this.

  9. dryclean says - Posted: June 8, 2011

    Council members make peanuts; about $500.00 per month. After gas to get there and back…maybe $450.00. I don’t begrudge their getting medical insurance especially given the stress that comes with this basically volunteer position.

  10. John W. Runnels says - Posted: June 8, 2011

    The voters ought to be able to vote on a proposal that would directly link Public sector employee wages and benefits to the average of those received by private sector employees within our community, not an average of other communities determined by consultants.
    It is ridiculous when public sector and special district employees are making more than those who pay the taxes which fund those salaries.

  11. fireman says - Posted: June 8, 2011

    I think what this really comes down to is the long term plan of keeping the city around. The current system is not sustainable. If this goes t the voters i think it would be a landslide not in the City Employees favor. Greed today makes for a poor future. I feel the public employees should be given the same retirement as the private. Let them make the coices of how to retire and at what level of wealth. Here would be another great questin of the week. How would you vote if the city employee benefit package was on the ballot?? I know how i would vote and it would not be for them to continue to recieve what they get.

  12. Skibum says - Posted: June 8, 2011

    “I feel the public employees should be given the same retirement as the private”
    What pivate retirement? Social Security? There is no retirement or health benefits in the pivate sector anymore. I agree, if this goes to the voters the council will be able to do what they are afraid to do now. I have nothing against any employees as I know most of them but there comes a time when reality must set in. The only othe chouce that we and countless other cities and states is to file bankruptcy and get out of the retirements. It wouldn’t be so bad if everyone didn’t “spike” their wages in their last year. After 21 years in the military I couldn’t do that and I am only getting about 25% of my pay as a retirement.

  13. fireman says - Posted: June 8, 2011

    Skibum i agree with you this is not sustainable. If you ever want to read something interesting google “Life of a Democracy.” This will really lead some light to what is going on and what the end effect is.

  14. Skibum says - Posted: June 8, 2011

    Democracy is the rule by people elected by a majority to do our will which we lost in the age of lawsuits and ACLU Lawyers. We no longer have a democratic society when you can change a vote of a majority the people with a lawsuit. This country is now a majority of the minority. I am not talking race here but there is no clear majority anymore.

  15. Roni says - Posted: June 9, 2011

    Ok, Hal wants us to put it the voters and then spend what is left of our tax dollars that could go to road improvements, snow removal, etc. to the lawyers when the employee unions take it to court….and drag this thing on for years.

    So, let’s break it down. Clearly a restructuring needs to take place but it is the responsibility of those who are paid to do it. Hold them accountable.

    I have worked in the private sector for nearly 40 years. The only thing that “privatizing” brings is a larger pool of low wage jobs as the “subcontractors” compete for low bid contracts and then underperform until they are fired and replaced with the next lowest bidder. There employees have no vested interest in you or the job they are underpaid to perform, so if you think it’s bad now…….just wait.

  16. really??!! says - Posted: June 10, 2011

    As far as restructuring public safety retirement and benefits, I think these guys/girls earn everything they get. They have one of the hardest jobs around…a job that the rest of you either can’t or won’t do for yourselves. For you folks that are constantly complaining about cops and firefighters getting paid a decent salary and getting decent retirements, GO BECOME A COP OR A FIREFIGHTER. Go out and see for yourself how difficult these jobs are. Then think about what our society would be like without them. That’s not a place I would want to live.

  17. Julie says - Posted: June 10, 2011

    No one really quibbles with their pay. Good for them. Pay them what they deserve. It’s not even about cops or firefighters. Other city staff deserve a decent salary, too. It’s about the retirement and health benefits in retirement. I don’t care how hard someone works, as a taxpayer I have no desire to pay them the kind of benefits that are on the books. There are a lot of jobs that are hard. There are jobs that are life threatening. Some are in the public sector and some in the private. Stop feeling entitled to these benefits — because you aren’t. Nor did you earn them. You’ve earned a salary; that’s it.

  18. the conservation robot says - Posted: June 10, 2011

    Tyranny of the majority.

  19. Parker says - Posted: June 10, 2011

    And really??!!, there’s a line out there door for those jobs and they don’t even advertise them! (And No, I’m not one of the people that has ever desired to apply).

    Has anyone said we don’t need the services. NO! Has anyone said those working should be paid minimum wage? NO! We’re in a cost-crunching time and it’s quite fair for the taxpayer to look at compensation and staffing!! And no one has yet to respond to the blogger dan tan, who asked how can 7 SLTPD be taking a coffee break at the same time, who replied to me on why you need 6 cops (and I think there were more?) to get some kid ordering drinks with a faked id?

  20. Krista Eissinger says - Posted: June 16, 2011

    Break time is probably because there aren’t any tourists coming here in droves like they used to. Did you folks notice that our census numbers have diminished by, 5+k (I believe) since the last census? Been here nearly 30 years and now I’m having to seriously consider leaving too. Not because I want to either. It’s been a wild ride though, I must say.

  21. really??!! says - Posted: June 17, 2011

    I’ll respond to the blogger thing right now. Why exactly does it matter if 7 cops are taking a coffee break? Are they some sort of robots that don’t need breaks? So what if there are 7??? Most of the time they are exchanging beat/suspect info between agencies. The other inaccurate information about that statement; SLTPD NEVER has 7 cops working at one time anyway, so that statement CAN’T be true. But bottom line…SO WHAT??!! As long as your calls for service are handled, live your own life and stop worrying about everyone else all the time.

  22. really??!! says - Posted: June 17, 2011

    Oh, and in response to Julie, the benefits and retirement are the biggest attraction for people to become cops and firefighters. (Cause believe me, the pay ain’t much!)Otherwise no-one in their right mind would do it. All the bleeding hearts have made it very difficult in recent years for them to do their jobs effectively. There has to be some incentive. Has absolutely NOTHING to do with entitlement. Give us a little more credit than that.