Latest on the Pension Reform Front
The latest on the pension reform from comes from the City of Los Angeles. Here's a couple of excerpts from today's LA Times (click here for entire article):
Alarmed over the spiraling cost of retirement benefits, Los Angeles' top budget officials have begun laying the groundwork for a June 8 city ballot measure that would dramatically scale back the pension benefits given to newly hired city employees.
The plan sets the stage for a showdown between the city's elected officials and the labor unions that, in many cases, helped put them in office...
Budget officials expect taxpayers' share of city pension costs to grow from $653 million this year to nearly $1.3 billion over the next four years for every agency but the Department of Water and Power, which has a separate retirement system. In other words, one of every four dollars collected by the general fund, which pays for basic services such as police, parks and libraries, would go toward retirement benefits by 2013.If benefits are not scaled back, the city will need to make "significant reductions" in the workforce and city services, the memo states. "The sooner we make changes, the sooner we can restore our long-term fiscal health."
Just like the pension reform ideas being floated here in San Joaquin County, modifying the benefits for future employees will have virtually no impact on the huge pensions costs coming the next few years. However, it will begin to slow the growth of pension costs.
If we as public employees don't begin to address this issue, there will be statewide ballot measures to impose a solution upon us--and that solution will definitely address current employee benefits as well.
Alarmed over the spiraling cost of retirement benefits, Los Angeles' top budget officials have begun laying the groundwork for a June 8 city ballot measure that would dramatically scale back the pension benefits given to newly hired city employees.
The plan sets the stage for a showdown between the city's elected officials and the labor unions that, in many cases, helped put them in office...
Budget officials expect taxpayers' share of city pension costs to grow from $653 million this year to nearly $1.3 billion over the next four years for every agency but the Department of Water and Power, which has a separate retirement system. In other words, one of every four dollars collected by the general fund, which pays for basic services such as police, parks and libraries, would go toward retirement benefits by 2013.If benefits are not scaled back, the city will need to make "significant reductions" in the workforce and city services, the memo states. "The sooner we make changes, the sooner we can restore our long-term fiscal health."
Just like the pension reform ideas being floated here in San Joaquin County, modifying the benefits for future employees will have virtually no impact on the huge pensions costs coming the next few years. However, it will begin to slow the growth of pension costs.
If we as public employees don't begin to address this issue, there will be statewide ballot measures to impose a solution upon us--and that solution will definitely address current employee benefits as well.
Labels: Pension
posted by City Manager @ 12:45 AM
2 Comments:
At January 6, 2010 9:35 PM ,
mcelroyg said...
Ballot initiatives impacting 'current' employee benefits namely retirement would be met with significant legal challenges. This is especially true for those governmental agencies that have required employees to contribute towards the pension plan (i.e. the County of Sacramento for example).
At January 8, 2010 5:53 AM ,
The Manteca Response said...
What is the use of our constitution if every single item is always challenged? Look at Prop 8, it's on trial??? Give me a break, the citizens have spoken and until they speak again, it's the law, so why vote? This has to stop!
The same goes for this pension mess, if we don't do something about it, it's going to bankrupt us for sure. The ballot should allow each city/county to detail their own plan in order to make it right for them, not one bucket carries the entire river of water. Give the local governments the ability to make it right for their own community. Otherwise, I think we need to hire out the services of the city and save money that way by placing the burden of the work on those qualified to do the job and get it done right and with a strong customer service.
Post a Comment
<< Home