The problem now is that the City is trying to put some non-negotiable pieces on the table that neither solve the problem nor evidence good faith, since the threat of calling impasse (which means the City makes unilateral decisions about all terms in a contract) has been liberally threatened. I say they are not acting in good faith because there is no attempt to reach the desired outcome – for example, reducing personnel costs by $X – but rather are pushing “non-negotiable” strategies to get there, such as cutting the City’s contribution to retirement FOREVER.

Now, I personally might not even mind that. After all, not everyone is a lifer, and given the retirement fund’s decline, maybe I’d prefer to hide my money in the mattress, anyway. What’s super irritating is the fact that the contribution is MANDATORY, which means every employee will receive an effective 5% paycut (to cover the City’s current contribution) now… and who knows if anyone will get their retirement benefits later? I say, let me opt out of the system, period, especially if I have to foot the whole bill.

Something more flexible and responsive to economic conditions, such as the furlough policy, which would be reversed when/if the economy recovers and people demand full service, again, is a more appropriate response to the supposed problem, which is a budget shortfall in the here and now. As to long-term solutions, cutting services and employees to do them (and money with which to pay them) is not the best strategy. Ever.

Leadership. Leadership. Leadership. Who’s steering this thing?

I think that who makes up the shortfall is determined in each contract. For example, when we changed to a different retirement age, the Union negotiated to have the members of the union pay for the “make-up” in return for changing the age. This was to make up the actuarial shortfall. However, J-man’s Dad may be more informed than myself (since I do not know who it is)….

-len raphael

I am not sure, but I don’t think Oakland actually gets money from these two state agencies, but rather, they provide lists of people who owe the city money. For example, I was a bit negligent in paying my business license tax for the first couple of years. The city knew I had a business because it was reported on my state income taxes. The FTB in effect ratted me out to the city (don’t worry I’ve paid all of my fines and been legit for years). Similarly I think the DMV just helps the city match people to vehicle license plates so they can go after parking tickets, etc.

Am I understanding this correctly or is Brooks talking about something else?

I’m guessing that even if cops/fire have a different plan, it probably is a similar guaranteed benefit kind (thats been long extinct outside of public sector) which will need the city to make up the actuarial shortfall?

wsj article today “The nation’s largest public pension fund said it intends to tap California public employers for more money if its heavy investment losses don’t reverse, a sign that more financial pain could be in store for state and local governments.

The California Public Employees’ Retirement System, known as Calpers, said its assets have declined by more than 20%, or at least $48 billion, from the end of June through Oct. 10.

Unless returns improve, Calpers is poised to impose an estimated increase in employer contributions of 2% to 4% of payroll starting in July 2010 for about two-thirds of its state-employer members, and in July 2011 for the remaining third. Any decision will be made after Calpers knows its returns for the fiscal year.”

Any sense as to what the applicable wage base would be?l. if say half of the general fund budget is wages, that might be 2% of 500Mill = 10Mill . Wish there were a way to do a golden handshake with the Raiders.

We need someone who knows oakland’s budgets to create a sensitivity model which we can access or download to test different revenue and expenditure scenarios as they evolve.

-len raphael
temescal

would a building dept engineer who did permit plan checking be considered revenue producer but the person who schedules inspections would not?

or an inspector who follows up on blight complaints would not be revenue producer but inspector on construction permits would be?

what’s the sense of how much jiggering between funds, reserves, and one time revenue squirts were involved in this last balancing?

My understanding is that yes, the Mayor is expected to identify the additional 11 FTEs that will be cut. The matching funds won’t be lowered, they’re just taking the money out of that fund for now because we don’t have any elections right now. But money will have to added there at some point in the future. It isn’t revenue producing departments (almost all department produces some revenue) being spared, it’s revenue producing positions. So, for example, you wouldn’t eliminate someone whose responsibilities include collecting fines, because then you’d end up losing more money than you save.

Any interim changes will go before the City Council’s Finance and Management Committee (I think they said monthly), and yes, the information will be publicly available.