Fix Pacifica: Patch post: City Employee Wage, Benefits Cuts and Budget Reductions

Friday, January 27, 2012

Patch post: City Employee Wage, Benefits Cuts and Budget Reductions

http://pacifica.patch.com/articles/patch-provides-city-employee-wage-benefits-cut-summaries#pdf-8986257

By special request of Bob Hutchinson

50 comments:

Hutch said...: Thanks Steve. Well looking at this it seems the fictitious 3.5 million in cuts we've been told about are sick/holiday pay not being cashed in and uniform allowances. Pay reductions of only 3%.; January 28, 2012 at 10:06 AM
Steve Sinai said...: From the documents, it looks like the "cuts" are mostly about slowing down salary and benefit increases in the future, rather than immediate income reductions like those of us in the private sector have had to deal with.

I've also never liked the idea of two-tier systems. It's very unfair and blatantly selfish for senior employees to refuse to share the pain, and instead screw-over the junior employees.; January 29, 2012 at 10:35 AM
Kathy Meeh said...: From Carmen's Report outline, city negotiations with Police and Firefighter unions looks like a good balance effort to me in both base salary and benefit reductions.

What I don't understand is "merit pay", and how that works.; January 30, 2012 at 12:24 PM
Anonymous said...: The city's efforts to regain control of wages and benefits is a joke. A joke on us, the taxpayer. There have been a few wimpy cuts to the frills but wages have not been rolled back to fit today's crumpled economy. Not at all. Granted it took 20 years of contracts to get to this point, all through the boom and bust of dot com, the stock market, and housing but the city has had several years to react. Their response? A task force. Wonderful. Where's the serious inquiry and information gathering on outsourcing anything? Ditto on combining some of these bloated dept head jobs? It ain't happening folks because what the city has in store for us is another tax for sure and that was probably always the plan. Any questions about how they'll sell it or which fears they'll play on? Shameful. This city can go suck eggs.; January 30, 2012 at 3:25 PM
Anonymous said...: Kathy, in Pacifica merit pay means the union says they merit and that you should pay. And no, in Pacifica there is never anyone looking out for the taxpayer. So much for balance.; January 30, 2012 at 3:35 PM
Anonymous said...: You really think a 3% cut is enough when we're in a crisis Kathy? I think 10% is more like it. Especially when you consider they have gotten more than 25% in raises the last few years.; January 30, 2012 at 4:04 PM
Anonymous said...: In this case Merit Pay=Automatic Increases. Another scam on the taxpayer.; January 30, 2012 at 4:10 PM
Kathy Meeh said...: "..really think a 3% cut is enough when we're in a crisis."

Anon (404), so you say. But, along with the -3% salary cut (specific to the Police Officers), there is a whole list of entitlements and benefits that were reduced or cut, and some potential furlough days. The pension formula was set to age 55 for new hires, (the formula probably needed an age-related adjustment for those employed, and the total pay-out is high).

Merit pay. Is that paid by the CITY because the employee shows-up and is breathing? Is it cumulative as a permanent wage increase? I still don't understand how that works. Anon (335) had a funny "union says pay" answer, but I suspect city supervisors determine merit pay, rather than the union. The "automatic pay" answer from Anon (410) is almost of interest.

Of course, this city has been short-staffed for years, and the long-term financial crisis in Pacifica is not new.; January 30, 2012 at 7:28 PM
Anonymous said...: Merit pay is commonly known as pay-for-performance. You're not far off Kathy in your "show up and breathe" comment. It's part of the city's contract with the union and just another way to pad the base salaries. The PD would set the criteria on merit pay--refer again to "show up and breathe". Chronic OT isn't about lack of hiring ability due to lack of funds. It's also the preferred way to pad those base salaries and also, because it's doled out on a seniority basis, it's about spiking that final year's salary to collect a higher pension for life. Take a hard look at those wage reports released by the city to see the stunning effect of OT on police salaries. They like it that way. Union contracts are like onions with layer after layer of irritants. We are sooo screwed.; January 30, 2012 at 9:24 PM
Anonymous said...: Merit pay for the PD is not a one-time bonus thing. It is a permanent salary adjustment for longevity and little else.; January 30, 2012 at 9:27 PM
Kathy Meeh said...: Nice follow-up Anons. Anon (924), under your category "sooo screwed", some of us are aware of the too often spiking of last-year-worked government employee salary leading to a really super pension.

Is spiking legal? It shouldn't be. Reform groups and CalPERS are fighting it. Article from Calpensions about pension spiking crack-down. Interesting comment from Dr. Mark H. Shapiro, 10/20/11, 11:43pm: "Spiking problems most often occur with local agency employees. State employees have operated under much stronger anti-spiking rules for years."

Related: Clear outline article from Barron's (3/15/10). And, spiking abuses "dirt" article (much of it related to California) from Bloomberg (5/19/11).

Meantime, remember the private sector "merit pay" (not), and social security? Well social security retirement is based upon an average of the highest 35 years of work. And, social security was never intended to pay more than 40% of that 35 year lookback.; January 30, 2012 at 11:26 PM
Anonymous said...: Do you think spiking was addressed by our crackerjack city senior staff in the on-going contract negotiations? I guarantee they know all about it even if council is in the dark. Do they purposely keep council in the dark? All of council or some? It could have been addressed and it surely should have been, but it probably wasn't. More's the pity because that one change could have reduced the pensions for current employees to more reasonable but still generous levels when they retire. Instead we have the new two tier benefit scheme which does not address spiking but does raise the retirement age to 55 for new hires. Guess what? There are no new hires. The city waves these scraps around like some big victory won at the bargaining table. It would be funny if it weren't so insulting. The people who run this city either are incompetent, lazy, or have nothing but contempt for the taxpayers. Probably all three.; January 31, 2012 at 12:30 AM
Anonymous said...: Three years ago at a city safety meeting we were told that on Friday nights we had only two officers on duty.

That was obviously not enough.

Now I see on the state website http://lgcr.sco.ca.gov/CompensationDetail.aspx?entity=City&id=11984161400&year=2010&GetCsu=False that we have 70 police and backup employees. Most of those are police.

Really? Does a town the size of Pacifica need this many officers? 70?; January 31, 2012 at 8:03 AM
Steve Sinai said...: I only counted about 35 officers, at most, who might be involved in patrols. (Corporals, Captains, Officers and Sergeants.)

A few years ago, former Police Chief Saunders told me that state minimums for a city of Pacifica's size were 3 patrols during the day, and 2 at night.; January 31, 2012 at 8:44 AM
Anonymous said...: senior staff benefits from spiking. It's a benefit for only the top level insiders.; January 31, 2012 at 9:44 AM
Anonymous said...: Still, San Bruno is bigger and they have less cops.

35 cops still seems like overkill in this sleepy little town. Then there's the other 40 backup personnel. Even if you low balled wages at $75,000 each that's over 5 million a year just in wages. Plus all their fancy all terrain vehicles, two canine units, assorted riot gear, trucks, health insurance, OVERTIME. I bet the police force is costing us over 10 million a year.

Any WHY are they working so much overtime with over 70 employees on the force????

Come on. Sure we want a strong force. But isn't this a little overboard for little Pacifica?; January 31, 2012 at 4:41 PM
Anonymous said...: It's called a gravy train.; January 31, 2012 at 5:08 PM
todd bray said...: The 2010 compensation data shows W2 information for 55 members of the Police department.

Of those 55, 4 are managers/supervisors of special programs, 6 are corporals, 8 are sergeants, 3 are captains and of course 1 chief for a total of 22.

Of the remaining 33 positions only 19 are police officers with the remaining 14 in dispatch, clerking and evidence handling.

19 indians, 22 chiefs... not much balance there. The average per officer is around $110,000, average for corporals was around $130,000 and the average for sergeants was around $145,000.; January 31, 2012 at 5:24 PM
Anonymous said...: Patrol officers have very few real concerns about going with the county although you certainly
won't hear that in public. They know how it works and that they'll have jobs in Pacifica with real opportunities and better training. A bigger labor pool and better mngmt will end the built-in Pacifica OT but base salaries are competitive and plenty of chance for promotion. It's the more senior highly-compensated officers who don't want the PD to be outsourced. Wonder why?; January 31, 2012 at 5:28 PM
Anonymous said...: As long as OT is handed out on a seniority basis and pensions are based on the earnings in the final year of work, spiking can happen at any level. Those conditions are part of whatever union contract applies. Certainly, the most egregious cases have involved senior staff but the problem is more widespread. Basing a lifetime pension payout on the final year's total earnings is the problem.; January 31, 2012 at 5:36 PM
Anonymous said...: anon441, San Bruno is a little bigger 41000 to 38000 and they are on the Bart and Caltrain line which usually means more mischief so why do they have fewer cops than sleepy Pacifica?; January 31, 2012 at 5:58 PM
Lionel Emde said...: Probably greater geographical distance. Pacifica is a much longer city (so to speak) than San Bruno.; January 31, 2012 at 9:28 PM
Anonymous said...: San Bruno has twice the crime rate as Pacifica due to a major shopping mall, two freeways, businesses, liquor stores, Bart, gangs low income housing etc. And the get by with less cops? And they're paying their cops less too?

We don't need this many police here. Nothing much happens except some vandalism, under age drinking and DUI's.; February 1, 2012 at 10:12 AM
Hutch said...: I would like to thank the Tribune for having the courage to print the 2011 salaries of our highest paid (over $100K) city employees right on their front page.

Of the 55 employees making well over $100,000 in 2011, 33 were Pacifica police employees.

Thank you Elaine Larson and Jane Northrop for having the courage to help get the truth out.; February 1, 2012 at 3:41 PM
Anonymous said...: From that published list there are90 city employees who made over $100,000 per year plus benefits plus pension in 2011. It would seem to be an accurate statement that the majority of FT city employees make over $100,000 per year plus plus. No amount of smoke and mirrors can obscure the simple fact that wages, including OT, have continued to go up even as this crisis deepens. Do we have any reason to believe that has changed? No, but we're talking about it. Indeed. Bravo to the Trib for this very fitting memorial to Bill Drake. And a shout out to Todd Bray for cutting through the crap put out by the city from the start. Are they disingenuous or just incompetent?; February 1, 2012 at 6:50 PM
Hutch said...: From the Tribune. Pacifica employees making over $100,000

The fire battalion chief is the highest paid city employee at $204,744 compensation and $12,084 in his pension.
He is followed by the deputy fire chief at $193,383, with $32,871 in his pension.
The city manager is the next highest wage earner at $192,077 compensation, $34,088 in his pension.
Here are the remainder in no particular order. The first number is compensation, the second is pension.
Human resource analyst $104,330, $10,236
Assistant finance director $136,273, $22,232
Finance systems specialist 110,505, $10,669
Finance MIS manager 129,317, $21,157
Police sergeant $153,998, $28,365
Police captain $144,748, $28,692
Police officer $122,185, $22,809
Police corporal $143,752, $24,690
Police sergeant $165,985, $28,620
Police sergeant $162,625, $28,903
Police officer $104,634, $22,064
Police sergeant $133,201, $27,125
Police corporal $145,555,
$23,747
Police systems specialist $110,674, $10,740
Police captain $168,402, $27,271
Police corporeal $128,424, $23,990
Police sergeant $132,626, $25,080
Police sergeant $157,592, $29,040
Police corporeal $129,950, $23,150
Public safety dispatcher $107,834, $7,525
Police corporeal $137,352, $24,895
Police officer $118,439, $22,107
Police officer $122,888, $22,446
Police officer $116,067, $20,486
Police officer $112,401, $20,389
Police corporeal $121,224, $21,266
Police officer $112,111, $19,886
Police officer $125,076, $21,212
Police officer $124,807, $20,112
Police officer $105,808, $18,843
Police officer $113,796, $18,988
Police officer $112,339, $19,330
Police officer $113,543, $20,229
Police officer $112, 437, $17,446
Police sergeant $168,616, $28,638
Police captain $157,513, $34,042
Police sergeant $147,821, $29,040
Police chief $160,384, $34,734
Paramedic coordinator $172,389, $30,022
Fire Captain $133878, $22,138
Deputy fire chief $193,383, $32,871
Paramedic/engineer/EMT $108,426, $19,223
Paramedic/engineer/EMT $112,885, $18,850
Paramedic/engineer/EMT $122,374, $18,734
Paramedic/engineer/EMT $107,815, $16,835
Fire battalion chief $204,744, $12,084
Fire battalion chief $178,921, $24,973
Paramedic, engineer/EMT $101,305, $17,632
Paramedic/engineer/EMT $101,714, $18,865
Fire captain $136,825, $20,899
Fire captain $136,059, $22,183
Paramedic/engineer/EMT $101,388, $17,499
Fire battalion chief $185,387, $16,217
Fire captain $114,889, $20,483
Paramedic/engineer/EMT $113,042, $18,360
Paramedic/engineer/EMT $102,617, $18,402
Fire captain $127,480, $20,361
Paramedic/engineer/EMT $115,404, $18,321
Wastewater assistant superintendent $133,337, $22,206
Public Works supervisor $109,376, $10,814
Associate civil engineer $109,441, $19,544
Wastewater source control inspector $113,729, $10,2114
Associate planner $101,590, $17,202
Associate civil engineer $110,627, $19,544
Public works supervisor $111,689, $10,775
Field services manager $151,691, $24,209
Associate civil engineer $103396, $17,498
Public Works superintendent $126,897, $20,685
Wastewater plant manager $166,635, $24,503
Director of Planning/city planner $144,602, $25,967
Director wastewater/plant operator $140,638, $25,480
Wastewater collections manager $135,022, $23,864
Public works superintendent $162,209, $21,448
Wastewater operator II $107,715, $10,337
Wastewater operator III $142,945, $11,908
Associate civil engineer $109,518, $19,348
Director of Public Works/city engineer $167,920, $30,245
Wastewater operator III $160,704, $10,978
Wastewater operator II $135,616, $10,760
Wastewater laboratory tech $100,033, $8,863
Wastewater laboratory supervisor $112,680, $10,763
Fire captain $151,571, $21,726
Wastewater operator II $136,296, $11,149
Wastewater operator III $134,973, $9,993
City clerk/executive assistant $117,102/$19,033
Director of Parks, Beaches and Recreation $148,227, $27,119; February 1, 2012 at 7:11 PM
Anonymous said...: No amount of grinnin' and spinnin' from city hall is going to take the stench off these numbers. Simple greed. Led by the unions but enabled, even encouraged, by
Councils and staffs. Was it ignorance, incompetence or self-interest?; February 1, 2012 at 7:17 PM
Anonymous said...: Here's a question for the Trib to ask of the City. Do council members receive pension benefits?
How much and when do they qualify?And when did that start?
It's time for full disclosure of all this. What else do they receive? Have they stopped doubling their salaries by taking the cafeteria cash option? Full disclosure, please, just like with the employees.; February 1, 2012 at 7:27 PM
Anonymous said...: These amounts we're paying city employees are outrageous. We are not a rich town. Cut there wages or hire locals for half as much.

Cut the PD in half. We don't need this many police officers in a low crime small town. And cut their pay and benefits too. Aren't cops supposed to do their job because they love it? Looks like they love the money.

And why are they working so much overtime? With this many cops there should be no overtime.

Can the City Council take control of this mess and stop letting the cops intimidate them? Order NO OVERTIME now.

If they want to leave I wish them luck finding a job with every county cutting wages and jobs. No city is hiring.; February 2, 2012 at 5:03 PM
Lionel Emde said...: "Here's a question for the Trib to ask of the City. Do council members receive pension benefits?
How much and when do they qualify?And when did that start?"

That's a good question, but a better question is: "What is the unfunded public pension liability of the city of Pacifica?"

The Tribune needs to be covering this, I encourage people to call editor Elaine Larsen at 738-4542 and ask when this story will appear. It is information people need to know before voting on a tax increase.; February 2, 2012 at 8:44 PM
Anonymous said...: Agree with you Lionel 100% but I'd like full disclosure on what Council's total comp is. All of it including any part of that unfunded pension liability you're asking about. Too much sneaky stuff happens on the consent calendar. We know that about 4 years ago they used the consent calendar to quietly make themselves the highest paid city council in the county with the cafeteria cash option. They were supposed to end that rip-offbefore asking the employees to give it up, but who knows? Elaine Larsen
has a great opportunity to seek the truth for the people of Pacifica not in the interest of politics but rather transparency in government.; February 2, 2012 at 9:20 PM
Hutch said...: Agree Lionel, the unfunded pensions are a huge ticking atom bomb. They must be dealt with very soon. I think we have two people on pension for every worker. That means these 100K employees are really costing us 300K. But I believe the state and Calpers handle that issue.

For now I think we need to first concentrate on wages and benefits we are paying to current employees and bring them more in line with what we get it the private sector.

And yest Anon 920, contact the Trib and let them know how you feel. They were very brave to print what they did this week. Encourage them, write a note, buy a paper, support the Tribune as long as they are helping to get the truth out.; February 3, 2012 at 8:04 AM
Kathy Meeh said...: Pacifica owes $20,510,000 in bonds to cover PERS retirement obligations, hence to pay past employees. Financing information, 240 pages. View "Last 5 years City revenue", page 104 (computer page 201). Note: city revenue: $31,706,000 (2009).

Moral to that story, beyond the chop: Pacifica needs more revenue to pay its bills, to survive, and to improve.

Got solutions? I think the solutions are to strategically develop the few open space and infill properties available. These will produce services, jobs and a high-level stream-of-income. The consultant or developer potential income estimates are based upon "science", rather than the alternative.; February 3, 2012 at 10:35 AM
Hutch said...: New development is great. I've always been for it. I hope the sharp park hotel, restaurand and housing goes through.

But this is years away.

We need to get out from under these strangling union contracts now.

A scaled wage cut of 1% for every 10K in wages is the fair way to go. Also cut other benefits to mirror the real world us taxpayers live in.; February 3, 2012 at 10:59 AM
Hutch said...: And WOW Kathy, we owe 20.5 Million for pensions?

That looks bleak. How the hell can we ever get out from under that? Can we file bankruptcy?; February 3, 2012 at 11:02 AM
Chris Fogel said...: And yest Anon 920, contact the Trib and let them know how you feel. They were very brave to print what they did this week.

No -- no, they really weren't. As the only local paper of record, it's the Tribune's civic duty to report on these types of issues. It's what papers are supposed to do. If Ms. Larson or Ms. Northrop are members of professional journalist societies/organizations, this sort of expectation is probably laid out as a professional code of ethics therein.

That the Tribune has failed to report on our municipal governance in any sort of critical or investigative capacity for so long is embarassing. That they're finally dipping their toes in the water (by reprinting city salaries) isn't worthy of admiration, but a response along the lines of, "It's about time."

Also, let's be honest -- merely reprinting salaries is small potatoes compared to an analysis of the real problems that lay hidden behind the budget numbers and that confront the City and its citizens.; February 3, 2012 at 12:24 PM
Anonymous said...: Chris (1224) spot on! But, the main problem with the Tribune is that it is a community newspaper in this split community. Offending city council and members of this community causes threats and readership problems. Thus, not much real investigation, as you say.; February 3, 2012 at 1:56 PM
Hutch said...: Yeah Chris, You can't expect Nobel prize winning reporting from a small community paper.

Yes they should do a lot more. But we need to encourage them. When they do some good reporting tell them and if they don't also tell them.

It may be their responsibility to fairly report the news, but is OUR responsibility to speak up and demand it.

I only saw a couple of letters to the Editor on this subject this week. More people have to write the Trib, and our city council.

Keep up the pressure.; February 3, 2012 at 2:17 PM
Chris Fogel said...: the main problem with the Tribune is that it is a community newspaper in this split community. Offending city council and members of this community causes threats and readership problems. Thus, not much real investigation, as you say.

I understand completely and I'm cool with the Tribune being this type of paper.

However, when Ms. Larson pens opinion pieces decrying the state of city council and community relations, I wonder if she realizes how her paper has dropped the ball and failed to keep the public informed about issues related to civic governance.

This doesn't have to be a Woodward & Berstein effort either -- just pick up the phone, call City Hall and ask a question every now and then.

As an example, does any of us know what Council's official position or the City's stance is with regards to the Highway 1 widening project? Do they support it or not? I don't know the answer and I feel I've tracked the issue fairly closely

During the DEIR/commentary period, when there was reporting on the events, did the Tribune bother to ask any of the council-members what they thought of it all? What their positions were? If not, why not?

The Highway wideining is just one issue -- there are dozens more like it where we don't know what the City's position is, what information they're working from, or where they're working towards. Nor do most of us have the ability to obtain this information.

Guess who's job this should be?; February 3, 2012 at 2:20 PM
Anonymous said...: Getting to the bottom of this financial mess is the first and only priority for making Pacifica healthy. Air out the stink in this town. Full disclosure of the numbers and facts and their implications instead of the usual city hall spin. Really cover council meetings including consent agenda actions, attendance, agendas. Print the truth not just the city hall spin. Keep opinions and politics on the Op-Ed pages. Provide voters with the truth and they'll make their own informed decisions. Great opportunity for a small town paper to make a real difference.; February 3, 2012 at 2:26 PM
Anonymous said...: Good grief Fogel, you talk like council and staff work for us. What a concept!

The Trib's best defense against economic retaliation is a reputation for unbiased reporting of the facts, all the facts. That's the power of the press. They don't currently enjoy that reputation but there's no reason they couldn't. None at all.; February 3, 2012 at 2:36 PM
Anonymous said...: On the subject of the role of media in local gov't I would hate to see PCT's coverage of council and planning commission meetings cut from the budget. We need more transparency not less. IMHO this is an essential city service and I applaud any council member who fights to keep it. Good government is open and accessible for all.; February 3, 2012 at 2:45 PM
Chris Fogel said...: I know, I know, I'm a dreamer.

Sorry, but I get little childishly frustrated about it all sometimes.; February 3, 2012 at 3:03 PM
Hutch said...: I know, it's all disheartening Chris. But this time it may turn out different if we all keep speaking up.

In the past everything was hidden from us. Now we have access to so much more information. Thanks to state laws cities must publish wages and benefits. Of course the unions hate this.

More people are aware that these high wages and benefits are unsustainable in this economy. They see more and more cities making major cuts and layoffs or going bankrupt.

But people need to speak up, write letters, call & email the Council. I think the tide is turning. Keep up the pressure.; February 3, 2012 at 8:08 PM
Lionel Emde said...: "...but I'd like full disclosure on what Council's total comp is."

Until very recently, our city council was the second-highest paid in San Mateo County.

http://www.pacificariptide.com/pacifica_riptide/2009/11/riptide-exclusive-a-closer-comparison-of-city-council-compensation-news-analysis.html

The pension question for council members is interesting. I never inqured as to what the policy was. Others may want to do so.; February 3, 2012 at 9:20 PM
Anonymous said...: There has been a persistent recent rumor about multi-term council being included in generous pension benefits from about the same time as they voted themselves other benefits like cafeteria cash. That cash-out option is what allowed them to more than double their salaries and become the 1st or 2nd highest paid council in the county. Hold the fanfare. I believe they recently gave that up which would explain their new ranking. Crowd goes wild. Any ideas on how to clarify council's full benefit package without putting an employee at risk? If it's true, then they must have very quietly voted to join a covered class at some point, I guess? Just how long will we really be paying these public servants?; February 3, 2012 at 10:24 PM
todd bray said...: The 2010 comp sheet list the following earning for council: $19,247, $20,231, $20,184, $13,570, $7,316.; February 4, 2012 at 1:02 AM
Mayou McNumbers said...: Remove the part-timers for the eqation and you get the following:
60 employees under $100,000
85 employees OVER $100,000
59% of full time employees make over $100,000. How many of you work for a company with 100-200 employees where almost 60% make over $100,000?; February 4, 2012 at 1:04 PM
Anonymous said...: I used to.; February 4, 2012 at 4:43 PM
Anonymous said...: Todd, thanks for the 2010 numbers. Triggered a flashback. Council's monthly salary is I think $700 per month so that's $8400 per year which is pretty normal for the office. Our little darlings at some point, maybe 2008, quietly voted to include themselves in the regular employees cafeteria plan which allows them to cash out unused benefits. That's how they went from about $8400 to $20,000 per year and became the highest paid city council in San Mateo County. They were supposed to give up the cafeteria cash last year. I wish the Trib had obtained and printed Council's 2011 earnings. It's not that I don't trust our little darlings it's just that I don't trust our little darlings. Did they vote to get other benefits, like a pension? Nothing would surprise me.; February 4, 2012 at 4:55 PM