The Contra Costa Bar Association’s September 2012 newsletter, Contra Costa Lawyer, included commentary by District 2 Supervisor Candace Andersen regarding her recent vote opposing placement of the Consolidated Fire District parcel tax measure on the November ballot. Andersen leaves open the possibility that she will support the tax, contingent upon a union agreement to provide lower pension benefits to new hires and “either a new model for delivering services or a cost savings plan to make the district’s budget sustainable beyond the [10-year] sunset of the parcel tax.”
On November 6, voters will have the opportunity to enter the voting booth and raise their own taxes through a variety of measures on the ballot. One of these will be a $75 per parcel tax requested by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (“ConFire”). A 55% majority vote would raise approximately $16.8 million annually and sunset after seven years. On July 31, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, which serves as ConFire’s Board of Directors, in a 4-1 vote, decided to place the tax on the ballot. I was the lone vote against it.
Read the rest here.
Bill Gram-Reefer is Editor & Publisher of Halfway To Concord, founded in 2004. Halfway To Concord is the leading online source for community-driven political news, events, and opinion for Contra Costa County and the San Francisco East Bay.
{ 17 comments… read them below or add one }
“John October 10, 2012 at 3:23 pm
The greed and entitlement expectations of the union and firefighters that support the union have become cancerous. The amount of pressure placed on society by the union is breaking down municipal finances…”
You nailed it! Just vote NO!
The greed and entitlement expectations of the union and firefighters that support the union have become cancerous. The amount of pressure placed on society by the union is breaking down municipal finances. This type of financial demand will hurt everyone from service to tax debt. It is time the public employees who receive twice the average income of all Californians be relooked at. It is time that the retirement and benefits for firefighters fall more in line with the norm of society. You can’t squeeze fifty dollars out of a one dollar bill no matter what you think. You can’t expect to draw taxes for twice the income from families who only make a fraction of what you make. This entitlement expectation of money has diminished the respect and honor that was previously earned by firefighters in earlier years. It appears that the firefighter is now in it for the money and not hearfelt call to service as it has been. This now leaves the public questioning the intent and integrity of the fire service.
Brian – read former Contra Costa County Treasurer-Tax Collector’s piece on pension contributions. The firefighters were given a raise to cover their increased contribution. And Bill was called a liar for his pains by Vince Wells. Dan Borenstein has documented it as well. See Dan’s December 10, 2010 column entitled “Pensions helping drive fire district shortfall.”
As for pension reform, it would apply to the firefighters except experts realize that the impact will be long in coming. And for the record, the reform excludes the employees paying for the unfunded liability which is immense and growing since CCCERA wildly missed making the 7.75% assumed rate of return.
Brian take a good look at the chief’s budget and you will see that the pension costs (including paying back the money borrowed to try and cover the shortfall) is $26.2 this fiscal year. Add another $7.6 million for retiree health care. This cannot go on.
I read a flier put out by the fire union saying that pension reform has already been passed at the state level. Sadly they forgot to mention Con Fire does not participate in the state retirement. This means they are selling the public a load of crap. What do it take to get the truth ? Anyone who votes for this sorry waste of public dollars without a written reform of pensions is not only uninformed but hurting their children with a revolving debt that can’t be paid off.
Voter 26, you are correct that Con Fire does not participate in Calpers. You are INCORRECT that the pension reform does not effect County (or 37 Act) retirement systems. The legislation signed by Jerry Brown takes effect for all (both state and County) Retirement Systems, with the exception of the UC Retirement system. The new law bans any form of “Pension Spiking” for current and future employees, averages the last 3 years for final compensation instead of one year, raises the retirement age to 57 for firefighters and Cops and 67 for all other employees, and reduce the formula to 2.7% at 57 for fire and police. In addition it mandates a 50/50 split of retirement costs between the employer and employee, which for Con Fire it is already having the employees pay 65% of the cost and the employer or county pays 35% of the costs. Unfortunately many are unwilling to hear the facts, and believe everything that the CoCo Times and CoCo Tax puts out.
I, too, am amazed that Tom Barnidge can justify any increase in payments to the Fire Districts in Contra Costa County. Does any body realize that when fire fighters retire at age 50 (assuming that they started at age 20) that they can collect benefits for an average of 40 more years (that’s right, the average age people will live to will be 90 very shortly, with the average life expectancy increases) . Simply stated, they, those firefighters that retire at 50, will collect 2-3 times more money than they made while they were working (if cost of living adjustments are figured in). How do we pay for this going forward. Maybe, we, the taxpayers of Contra Costa County, can contribute all our old Starbuck’s bags in collection bin (as each one is worth one cup of coffee at your local Starbucks -even in Safeway)???
I am amazed by your ignorance! Do you know that firefighters have one of the highest Cancer, Cardiac, Stroke, infectious disease risk of any employee group? Please visit the wall on Treat Blvd and look at the names on the wall of men and women right here in Contra Costa that have died very young. If you want to get educated go to: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/fire/ and read about firefighter accidents and fatalities nationwide. Firefighters retire early because the job is dangerous, taxing both physically and emotionally, and guys just plain get injured. I have a friend that is 43 years old, been on the department for 13 years and has had: Knee surgery, shoulder surgery, broken hand, back and neck injuries which he still gets injections for, and he still continues to work and serve the public. The bottom line is that firefighting is very physical and comes with numerous injuires and is not for older guys, I guess in a sense many (not all) firefighter sacrafice their health and bodies for a decent paying job and retirement. I think if you asked any of those guys, “Do you go running into a burning building to collect a pension?” the answer would be no, they do it because they love the job and care about the community and people that they serve.
The front page of the September 24, obviously corrupt CC Times has a propaganda piece for this tax, by Tom Barnidge. Does anyone question my long held belief that the Contra Costa Times is corrupt? They have been putting pro-tax propaganda on their front page for as long I can remember.
I read Barnidges article and the first thing that came to mind was the three pages of people listed delinquent on their taxes a couple weeks back. That article about the fire tax and starbucks coffee was amusing. He talks like everyone could afford starbucks coffee and the tax would fix the problem. What a crock of bologna by Barnidge. Many people can’t afford starbucks coffee because they have to pay too many taxes ! If its so little of a tax that everyone should pay extra for then why doesn’t Barnidge and his billion dollar newspaper just pick up the tab? The issue has been festering for several years without any real solution attention. Oh, wait there was an action back in 2005 where the supervisors and the fire district floated $129,000,000.00 million dollars in bonds that we never voted on but have to pay back at 4.5% interest. That moronic decision put the district in worse shape and we didn’t even get to vote on that bail loan that dug the debt hole deeper. Barnidge’s comparison about taxes reduced was even more hilarious. If they reduced their compensation in ratio to what I lost on my house we wouldn’t need a tax. When taxes rise we would give it back. We will never see a rebate for new taxes just more overspending by the cohorts at the top running this runaway spending train into oblivion so our children will suffer even more. Tom Barnidge has been had by the special spenders of our tax dollars.
It is too late to expect the Union and Board of Supervisors to become responsible and reform pension. Voting is just around the corner. The Union and BOS has had plenty of time to fix the problem if they really wanted to. They just promise, talk, and threaten if you do not vote their way. Who is working for who here? Voting for this tax is one of the worst mistakes a voter can do. Do you give your children ice cream after they have been irresponsible and behave badly? Do you know double dipping still hasn’t even been addressed. There are solutions other than this Band-Aid new tax. We need to force the BOS and Union to stop taking our children’s future away by ignoring the real problem. Taxing us because of irresponsible and wasteful spending will still not solve the problem. Your children need your help now to pass a better life to them and not a bigger debt for them to pay off because you would not make a stand today to stop the runaway debt. Stop the special interest revolving door of wasteful spending and become a real entitled citizen who expects government to do its job. Vote NO on Q
I hope Candace is not rolling over for the firefighters union as the other supervisors already have. Just addressing lowering the pensions for new hires won’t cut it. Cutting the pensions of current employees is a must.
You’re right, Ken. As today’s WSJ headline story entitled “Pension Crisis Looms Despite Cuts” states:
“Almost every state in the U.S. has made cuts to its public-employee pensions, seeking to dig out from the economic downturn, but so far the measures have fallen well short of bridging a nearly $1 trillion funding gap . . . But the new laws have trimmed just $100 billion out of the $900 billion gap between what the states and their workers put into their retirement plans and what the states owe in retirement benefits . . . Many [states] have opted apply [pension cuts] only to workers who have yet to be hired.”
As nationwide experience demonstrates, adoption of a two-tier benefit level for ConFire employees will not produce necessary savings. Benefit levels must be reduced for current and future employees — this change is an essential part of making District services affordable within current funding levels.
I read today that Danville, Orinda, and another City in Contra Costa County have no pension problems at all. The reason is that they pay none. They pay the employee and the employee pays for themselves. They do have an added incentive to match up to 505 of what an employee adds on top (with a maximum). So, its that simple and it can be done. At least Candace is trying something. Mary has looked at this for eight years and did nothing. Now she is playing stupid on the subject instead of actually doing something. I guess we should expect anymore than she has already done which is nothing. It could be worse, Mary could give a 60% raise to everyone just because. The Board of Supervisors need to stop the procrastinating, get off their high horse, and force the unions to get real with this problem.
ConFire’s pensions are not sustainable. Meaningful pension reform is difficult to achieve, but we need to begin somewhere. Retirement for existing employees and retirees is deemed vested by the California Supreme Court and cannot be modified unless agreed to by the entire bargaining unit. At the very least, we need to have a new, less costly pension tier such as a 3% at 55 for new hires. The financial benefit won’t be seen immediately, but it’s a start.”
I’m sorry but Candace just gets it wrong, which leads me to believe the FD union is in her ear. Is she really proposing a “Less costly pension tier such as a 3% at 55 for new hires”? Those cost savings are so minisicule they won’t even cover the increased cost from the pension funds failure of just the last year.
“Retirement for existing employees and retirees is deemed vested by the California Supreme Court and cannot be modified unless agreed to by the entire bargaining unit.”
The only reason people continue to believe this argument, based on two flimsy cases that were only remotely related to the present day argument, is because news papers and politicians continue to regurgitate the old wives tales that were promoted by the pension funds, unions, and paid for politicians.
Jerry Brown, during the press conference promoting his 12 step plan, said ‘if they don’t agree to pension reform you can cut their salary. salaries aren’t a vested right.’
Candace Anderson needs to come up with someting much more substantial than a 3@55 plan for new hires, which saves about 1.5% of payroll – really nothing. The cost increases, which already amounts to at least a 200% increase over and above the normal cost of the pension plan, will be increasing about 3 TIMES the savings of the switch from the 3@50 pension plan to a 3@55 plan, over just the next two years. That ain’t pension reform.
If this is the best plan Candace Anderson can come up with then she isn’t trying hard enough. We’d be better off voting against the parcel tax
The County Board of Supes has finally been visited with a smattering of integrity. We need more people like Candace on the board.
I agree Tator. too bad there were not any takers against Glover, Piepho, and Gioia. These three will bring down Contra Costa with thier giveaway to ubions and special interest.
Quik question Brian, and i do t mean for you to defend them but CCCERA has been California poster child for pension spiking and other pension accounting abuse and turn its back on previous legal “suggestions” to dial back the abuse. Why would they listen to Jerry or state law now when they e ignored it before?