Comments by JustWondering | San Diego Reader

JustWondering

And Here Are Employees Who Bought Years They Didn't Serve

Founder, Lets examine your dramatic $600,000 to run the city and look at it another way. San Diego consists of about 325 square miles. Maintaining San Diego streets, water and wastewater systems, beaches, parks, cemetery (Yes the city owns a cemetery) dams, lakes, bridges, over-crossings, buildings, stadiums, marinas, and golf courses is a just a short list of the physical plant side of the "house". Then there's daily cost of operating the lights, you know the building lights, 40,000 street lights and signal lights, not to mention 53,000 street signs. What about 2800 miles of streets and alleys, or 5,000 miles of sidewalk and 70,000 storm and sewer drains. The city is also green outside of parks with more than 200,000 trees lining roadways, paths and public landscaping. Not to mention the cost of providing law enforcement services, fire and paramedic protection, lifeguards and trash collection. There's also the cost of running and maintaining all of the city vehicles. They don't run on air, and if there cars are like mine, the breakdown and wear out tires. Oh and don't forget the multitude of other services demanded by the folks who live here. All of this infrastructure and beauty in 325 square miles of southern most southern California costs about $1850 per square mile, per day. According to the latest US Census Bureau data San Diego has about 3771.9 persons per square mile. This means each of those persons, enjoying the parks, getting clean water, not having to worry about how their waste, both sewage and solids are handled, clean beaches, great libraries, a world famous zoo in one of the nicest parks on the West coast, pay about 50 CENTS a day to live here in San Diego. San Diego has a population of about 1.3 million. This means each citizen is paying roughly $2.10 each day to enjoy, what Pete Wilson called, "the Sunshine Tax". Hell I pay twice that everyday for coffee and piss it away in an hour or two. Every morning I get up and look out my window and know I live best places on Earth. If you ask me, $6OOK a day to run a city, with all that San Diego offers to its guests and provides to its citizens, is a bargain.
— August 30, 2010 10:45 a.m.

And Here Are Employees Who Bought Years They Didn't Serve

Johnny, Mr. Schwarzenegger op/ed piece, that's right OPINION is full of projections that may or MAY NOT come true. In other words, more half truths from our actor/politician. He's using all of the tricks and skills as an actor to play on one of the two biggest emotions that drive financial decisions; fear. As usual Johnny, your predictions of the sky is falling, what a surprise, are as predictable as Obama wanting to waste another trillion of taxpayer's money on a new stimulus deal. Since you Double Dog Dared, let's look at Graph#2 that you say is so important. While the graph has a VERY DRAMATIC for maximum visual impact upswing, did you bother to read the fine print at the bottom? The disclaimer at the bottom says, in part, "Assumes ....2000-2011 annual growth rates." As a bottom dwelling lawyer you should be very familiar with the fine print. Especially items like this one used as disclaimers for politicians who needs a built in excuse in the future. We already know the State has reduced compensation for a majority of it's employees through various means. So the growth rate projected in Graph #2 is already wrong. But let's talk about where we live in San Diego, many of the complaints voiced by you and Don have already been addressed by pension reforms enacted in and since July of 2005. We also know there are more to come with each contract negotiation. In addition, City employees wages have been reduced by as much as 6% while the employee contribution to SDCERS has risen too. To address the growing retiree medical cost issue, the City capped to retiree medical benefit in July 20009 (subject to ongoing litigation). To end the growth with this issue, no employee hired on or after 7-1-05 has access to the retiree medical benefit. While it is true, the State need to implement some the same reforms, San Diego has led, not by example but by taking real action, and implementing real change. Double Dog Dare Done.
— August 30, 2010 6:01 a.m.

"Rolls Out, Rolls Out, Oh How the Money Rolls Out...."

Or, maybe it's just not moral.
— August 30, 2010 5:10 a.m.

Deflation Could Heat Up Pension War

Two issues. First the COLA. SDMC §24.1505(a) details the rules of the COLA and how it is applied. This includes the possibility of a DECREASE not increase based up Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index. Here is the link to the SD Muni code: http://docs.sandiego.gov/municode/MuniCodeChapter… While a decrease has not happened to date, it can and Ordinance codifies it. If we fall into a deflationary period, we can expect SDCERS pensions to decrease too. Second issue. Assumed rate of return. While the rate seem high in the context of today's economic climate, the facts are SDCERS has met or exceeded the rate regularly. This year the return was 13.1%, 5.35% higher that the expected return. And yes, before SP jumps all over me, there have been years when the rate was not met. Nevertheless, there have been other years when the expected rate of return was 8% but the system earned 18-20%, more than doubling the expectation. Additionally, under SDCERS Board rules, the Board of Trustees reviews the rate annually. Then, based upon information supplied by actuarial professionals, and experience studies sets an appropriate rate. My point is the rate is not just picked out of the air or pegged by throwing a dart. The lowering the rate to what might be the perceived 2010 economic reality will produce a negative effect on city budget. It will force the actuary to INCREASE the City ARC or Actuarially Required Contribution thus further eroding the City's general fund. Long Term is the key. In fact, when we examine the S&P 500 index between 1/1/1940 and 12/31/2009 the average rate of return, adjusted for inflation, is 8.20% Sounds like the investment professionals have it just about right to me.
— August 26, 2010 12:42 p.m.

And Here Are Employees Who Bought Years They Didn't Serve

Don, Now you're telling only half of the story. As you know the 4th District Court of Appeals ruled on this matter on June 7, 2010, abd neither party is appealing so this seems to end it. https://www.sdcers.org/Documents/Opinion_PSC_Writ… In the ruling, the court carved out certain periods where PSC contracts signed by SDCERS and the participating employee, are now in question. The period is the window between the time period of August 15, 2003 through November 1, 2003. The Court agrees with the City's argument that it should not be held financially responsible for the under priced contracts. The SDCERS Trust has three sources of revenues, Employee contributions, Plan Sponsor contributions and Investment returns. The City, as plan sponsor, has been excluded by the Court for the under priced contracts, this seems to leaves only one source, the employees. This has open a Pandora's Box of issues with many more question then there are answers. If watch the video from the August 6th SDCERS Ad Hoc Committee meeting you get a feel for some of the issues covering some 3600 contracts and 2100 employees. Ann Smith, MEA Attorney, spoke at this meeting and commented on many of issues now faced by the current Board. I'll forward you a copy of her Open Letter to SDCERS' Ad Hoc Committee on PSC issue via email. In it you'll find interesting legal arguments that all interested parties should consider. The current SDCERS Board, by Court Order, must find some sort of resolution to the under pricing issue that does NOT include the City as part of the ARC, Annual Required Contribution, or UAAL, Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability. However, one argument still holds the City responsible and it falls under indemnification of the City's Boards and Commissions. All City Boards and Commissions are insured for their acts or omissions. The Court has ruled; "In November 2007 the SDCERS Board of Administration voted to charge the City for a shortfall in service credits purchased by City employees." The court found that the Board's decision was contrary to the City's Municipal Code and Charter, which required the purchase of service credits by employees to be "cost neutral" to the City. In other words, the Court said the Board acted illegally in November of 2007. Further, acts by Boards in 1997 and 2003 may have also been illegal. Finally, everyone MUST remember, SDCERS does not create ANY benefits. Benefits, even PSC contracts were created by the City Council, the Plan Sponsor, SDCERS' error was relying on the actuaries who price them out in 1997.
— August 26, 2010 9:06 a.m.