 |
 |
By BRETT WILKISON
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
Sonoma County supervisors Monday used money from employee concessions to keep about 34 jobs and save several high-priority programs from the budget ax, including a juvenile probation center for girls, a community policing program and two domestic violence counselor jobs.
Supervisors preserved a total of $4.2 million in jobs and programs, mostly through money the county expects to recoup from employee furloughs in the coming fiscal year, beginning July 1.
The restorations reduce from $31.2 to $27 million the job and program cuts that supervisors are set to approve when they vote on the final budget today.
To fill the rest of the $61.6 million deficit in county’s $395 million general fund, supervisors have looked at $11.7 million in different one-time funds, $10 million in salary and hiring freezes, $3.5 million in improved sales tax revenue and a combined $5.2 million in savings from refinancing of pension-system debt and reducing the funds supervisors hand out to community projects and groups.
Monday’s restorations came after a negotiations deadline with employee groups and announcements from two groups that they had reached a deal with the county on the mandatory days off without pay.
Department heads who earlier stood to lose 10 to 20 percent of their budget, including some of the high-priority programs, greeted supervisors’ moves with open arms.
“We’re thrilled,” said Chief Probation Officer Robert Ochs, whose department oversees the Sierra Youth Center. The 20-bed juvenile probation center for girls was initially slated for closure, taking with it about 10 jobs. But supervisors unanimously endorsed keeping it open with about $1.1 million of the furlough savings.
Pending a final vote today and the outcome of continued furlough talks with employees, supervisors also decided:
–The Sonoma County Sheriff’s Larkfield and Sonoma Valley substations will remain open, and a community policing and graffiti cleanup program will continue on a smaller scale. Two domestic violence counselors paid for through a contract with the YWCA will be retained another year.
–In the District Attorney’s Office, a victim advocate job and an attorney position that deals with juvenile victims of crime through the Redwood Children’s Center will be saved. An attorney slot assigned to juvenile court will be cut.
–About $115,000 will be restored for maintenance of county parks, but nearly four seasonal park slots, each of which is used to employ several part-time workers, will be cut.
Supervisors had hoped to save about 58 jobs and associated programs, totaling about $7.5 million in spending. But employee concessions fell short of that tally by an afternoon deadline Monday.
In addition to the furlough savings, a freeze in staff training dollars recouped another $875,000, but supervisors decided to tuck most of that away for spending at a later date on community projects and groups.
Still, supervisors applauded employee groups that agreed to the furloughs.
“We know you made sacrifices and we deeply, deeply appreciate it,” said Supervisor Shirlee Zane, who was backed heavily by labor unions in her 2008 election win.
The roughly 2,000-member SEIU Local 1021, the county’s largest union, and the 225-member Deputy Sheriff’s Association, the third largest employee group, announced Monday they’d reached tentative furlough deals with the county.
Because of SEIU’s size, the union’s deal for eight furlough days in the coming fiscal year and five the next sets the terms for all other participating employees. Across the 11 represented employee groups and unrepresented workers, the furlough package equates to a roughly 3 percent pay cut and results in a one-year savings of $3.9 million
A earlier deal agreed to by the Sonoma County Law Enforcement Association or SCLEA, representing probation officers, correctional workers and emergency dispatchers, called for a total of 20 furlough days over two years and would have added up to about $6 million in savings the first year.
In addition to SCLEA and an associated group of law enforcement managers, two other represented employee groups and three unrepresented groups, including supervisors and management, have signed on to a furlough deal.
County officials would not confirm the SEIU and DSA deals Monday or discuss their terms, citing the need for each group to endorse any agreement through a vote.
July 13 is the next deadline for employee negotiations. After that the board indicated they could increase or decrease the job and program restorations based on additional estimated savings from furloughs.
In other business Monday, supervisors endorsed spending $1.7 million in federal stimulus money to fully fund the county’s Human Services Commission — and the 19 nonprofits it supports — plus save about 11 jobs in veteran assistance, child welfare, foster care, adult protective services and in-home care for the elderly.
The board had earlier indicated their intention to spend about $1.2 million of the federal funds for a portion of those jobs. On Monday, supervisors dipped into the stimulus account for another $500,000.
Leaders of groups that provide for the needy applauded the move in public comments Monday.
“This is the time to really stretch and dig deep,” said John Records, executive director of Petaluma-based Committee on the Shelterless, which receives about $72,000 annually for its efforts to house the low-income and homeless.
Outgoing supervisors Paul Kelley and Mike Kerns, who are both retiring from the board this year after a combined 28 years of service, also took the opportunity to share a bit of budget advice.
Kelley gave a 10-minute roll call of former and current county officials who he has worked with and expressed concern about the county’s use of furloughs and $11.7 million in one-time funds — including tobacco settlement money, delinquent property tax penalties and retirement account savings — to balance the budget.
“It creates some significant challenges if you don’t see revenue restored,” he said of the use of one-time reserves.
Kerns, meanwhile, said the county’s fiscal challenges were mirrored by the length of budget hearings, which this year stretched into a second week for the first time in his 12 years on the board.
“It’s not going to be easy next year or probably the next couple of years,” he said to assembled county colleagues. “I wish you well.”
Subscribe by Email
Follow us on Twitter
@Jim Stuart
Getting down to brass tacks. Why did SCERA (Sonoma Counties version of CalPERS) float $210 million in bonds back in 2003?
Who is paying for those bonds?
If what you are saying is true: that it is totally funded by employee contributions, then what happens if SCERA or CalPERS can’t make it’s pension obligations?
From Jim Stuart-
…….”Then a law was passed that said they had to account for future expenses, coining the phrase “unfunded liability”. It give the impression there isn’t money availble to pay for it. There is, just like there always has been.”
This is precisely the problem with local progressives. The truth is the economic projections and assumptions made previously have been in error…and now, really and truly Jim, there is no money. Today or down the road as far as Tim Geithner can see. He said so on Thursday.
Unfunded liablility is not a phrase Jim, it is an accounting principle that you cannot escape. No amount of ‘progressive’ wishing, hoping and pretending can overcome audit requirements.
We need people in office who understand this.
Unfunded liability sounds so ominous. For decades Sonoma County has been a “pay as you go” county, like most. Then a law was passed that said they had to account for future expenses, coining the phrase “unfunded liability”. It give the impression there isn’t money availble to pay for it. There is, just like there always has been.
Some have looked at CalPERS, which historically has achieved 7% return on average, even through the 2008 adjustment, and claimed it had an unfunded liability. A student at Stanford put together a paper using the bond market rate of 2.9% and applied it to CalPERS pension calculations, remember the 7% avg, and started squealing about hundreds of billions in “unfunded liability”. Standford University has done what it can to disassociate itself from the “Standford Report” because of it’s inacurracy. Still the media stigma remains that ALL public agencies are ont he verge of collapse due to their pensions.
Educate yourselves people, don’t just spue headlines and talking points here. Most of the money going to pension funds are taken directly out of the employees earnings as part of their benefits package. Like a 401K deduction, it comes from the employee. It is all a cost of doing business.
Let’s not conflate “defined-benefit retirement” and “unfunded pension obligations.” Public employee pension funds are suffering, in large part, because of Wall Street’s corruption and the resulting crisis. They are just another victim of the corporate greed that caused our crisis. By denying this and treating defined-benefit pensions as the cause, we’re just blaming victims.
The problem isn’t with the trade unions. You never hear about “massive unfunded pension obligations” with trade unions, because by and large they are defined contribution pensions similar to a 401K. I talked to a prevailing wage electrical contractor and he said he pays ALL the pension obligations each week (approx. 13% of wage to retirement and add’l 3% to the national). Lisa would know what the trade union retirement plan entails and I would love to learn more.
The problem is with city, county and state government employees, union and management alike, with massive unfunded pension obligations that are largely responsible for the loss of tens of thousands of jobs and unfilled positions. In Sonoma County we see the loss of hundreds of workers jobs through retirement without rehire, and layoffs…this is just the beginning, to continue the path we’re on will cost the jobs of many more, mostly younger or less senior union workers.
Presently on a $325,000,000 payroll the County pays an additional 40-50% in retirement benefits (over $150,000,000). The problem is we also have a $1,000,000,000…1 BILLION dollar increase in the unfunded pension liability since the year 2000. Basically in addition to the $150 Million current calculation we are seeing an average annual increase of $100 Million in unfunded liability. New government accounting standards may double that liability in the near future.
This liability is based on actuarial parameters that would make Wall Street blush…a guaranteed return of 8% amortized over a 30 year period…for an investment portfolio with a 10 year average return of 3% for a workforce with an average service life to retirement of 14 years. Who guarantees the return and the payments? The taxpayers and the active rank and file…many of whom have and will lose their jobs to fund it.
And yes Lisa is right when it comes to the upper tier at the County. The more you make the more unfunded the retirement becomes. The County is rife with examples. One department head recently got a $27,000 raise on a $200,000+ salary. He could retire in 2 years with 30 years service credit and receive 90% of that $27,000 raise…$24,000/year for the rest of his life (20-30 years, I hope…wouldn’t wish anyone otherwise). This employee’s contributions over the next two years on that $27K raise for retirement…$7020. Not a bad return on your investment, $24,000/year for life on a $7000 investment?
If anyone deserves this retirement benefit it is this individual. He has made immense contributions over a 30 year career to the workers of the County and the taxpayers. However, we simply cannot afford it. The County is poised for a bankruptcy worse than Vallejo if we don’t start engaging in honest debate about sustainable solutions.
Even though your post is snarky and insulting (as well as filled with the overblown pretentious self righteousness that has become your hallmark) let me explain it to you: The workers are not responsible for the economic crisis (which was caused by greed and chicanery on the part of big business and banks.) But they are willing to pitch in and be part of the solution by sacrificing their own well being to help the county solve its problem and keep services (for taxpayers) and workers going. The cridit crunch with it’s attendant forclosure crisis and unemployment is a major factor in the county’s budget rpoblem because the revenue form the county comes from taxes and revenue streams that were damaged by the bank caused recession.
Speaking of “credibility”, how much do you think you have hiding behind that ridiculous phony macho insprired “Beef King” moniker? The only thing you are illustrating are several ahem personal inadequacies.
Jim Stewart made an interesting observation regarding county dispatchers bringing home less pay yet having better benefits than their private industry counterparts.
The ‘better benefits’ is the expensive part of doing business with Unions, yet their benefits were never part of the concessions negotiations. This is a failure on the part of our elected officials, who could have and should have done much better than they did.
Why is local government so dysfunctional?
Are the voters paying attention?
From the keyboard of ‘Lisa Maldonado’…..
“Thanks are due to the union workers……even though they had no part in creating the economic crisis”.
This quote is why Ms. Maldonado has credibility issues with other posters, including myself.
She has one foot in reality, and the other in fantasy land.
If union contracts and workers had no role in the county budget crisis, then neither did the credit crunch nor the recession.
Alan I won’t bother “ripping into you” your own admission that you enjoyed employee benefits yourself and had no qualms speaking against them until you left your “association” already illustrates your character perfectly. Luckily that’s not indicicative of the typical union member’s mentality. We believe in bringing ALL wages and working conditions up-not engaging in a race to the bottom that pits middle class worker against worker. There is always someone who will do your job for less…is this the kind of country and economy we want? We believe in an honest days work for an honest days pay and we believe in sharing power and a safe and fair workplace. If that is “entitled” then perhaps we should go back to the days of industrial revolution when children worked, and people worked 12 hour days and 7days a week with no rest.
Before you you start criticizing public employees-take a look at management salaries and benefits. They are generally 150-250K a year and THESE are the folks that get the good pensions.
Let’s not fall into the mentality of acting like crabs in a bucket pulling everyone else down instead of lifting each other up. ALL workers deserve a good middle class wage and benefits so they can retire unafraid and the time to spend with their kids and community. These aren’t “inflated benefits” or “entitled” ways of thinking. There was a time in our country when one salary was enough to raise a family and buy a house and live comfortably. Wage theft (wages have been stagnant for 2o years) is killing our middle class. So stop criticizing other workes and fight with us to restore the middle class. That helps all of us and strengthens our community. Fighting for equally low wages and bad benefits guarantees a country of very rich and very poor-not the type place I want to live in.
Sonoma County employees do great work and should be appreciated. However, the entitlement attitude, that seems somewhat pervasive is unacceptable. Public employees exist to serve the pubic, not to enrich themselves. By comparison public employees throughout California have made far greater concessions in support of maintaining critical services to the public. I fully support livable wages and benefits, but it is not sustainable to support wages and benefits that far exceed the median, and to decimate public services to support them.
When are we going to start asking the rich to pay for the crisis they created?
Well, before we kneel down before the North Bay Labor Council, let’s keep in mind the artifucially inflated pay and benefits packages they extorted from their employers in the first place. Some adjustments are long overdue. I agree the unions aren’t entirely responsible for the economic malaise we’re currently experiencing. But neither am I willing to accept the unions as paragons of virtues selflessly sacrificing their livelihoods for the betterment of the community. And before Lisa rips into me, let me just add that I say this as a former police officer who once enjoyed the benefits of our association. I’m on the outside now and have a different perspective. OK, Lisa, let me have it.
Right on Lisa. If anyone has ever encountered the “rank and file” of the County’s workforce, they would know that these are not people getting rich off the public dole- they are by and large middle class working people, who like their jobs and are getting by, but not tapping the sickening wealth vacuums that wall street execs extract from their markets. Even the County Supervisors, although earning a high pay, are earning far less per hour worked than the lowest paid Execs at Goldman/Exxon/BP/etc.
While the recession has contributed to the budget problems of local govts, it’s hardly the underlying cause. More likely, it just moved up the day of reckoning.
For years public employee costs have risen faster than general fund revenue growth. The result was a squeeze on the general fund’s ability to pay for other services of govt. From potholes and parks to basic infrastructure maintenance, the squeeze has been obvious.
That one day revenue increases would slow and leave govts with a budget crisis was obvious to everything, apparently, but public officials.
It’s important to realize that the “pay cuts” county workers have accepted aren’t pay cuts as most people would define them. They are furlough days. A day off without pay. The core unsustainable compensation packages remain largely intact. Long term, nothing has changed.
Imagine, for 8 years Santa Rosa promised 90% pensions to every career employee. We’ll live with the consequences of that blunder for many years to come.
Remember, the anti-union folks think the unions are way overpaid already. This will not appease them. Most don’t understand. I research part of the SCLEA workforce mentioned the other day. The county dispatchers earn 10% less per hour than the private company prividing fire/ems dispatching. The county dispatchers have better benifits. There is a trade off, but the county dispatchers bring home less. Now, this deal, they will bring home even less. At least they had the option to take a cut and save jobs instead of a private company telling them they will retain all their wages but 10% more of them will be layed off.
Thanks are due to the union workers who are taking pay cuts to help preserve jobs and services for all of us, even though they had no part in creating the economic crisis. I hope that the anti-union voices on this board recognize that unions and workers at all levels city and state across the country have made real sacrifices that will hurt their own families and pocketbooks because they know how important it is to help other workers keep their jobs. This kind of compassion and generosity is in direct contrast to the behavior of ceos in private business who tanked the economy, lost millions of other peoples jobs and money and then still had their hand out for bonuses and golden parachutes (not to mention our tax dollars for their bail out). Let’s try to keep that in mind when the anti-union haters start blaming workers for everything!