 |
 |
By KEVIN McCALLUM
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
Santa Rosa Mayor Ernesto Olivares is giving up his $14,400 annual salary in recognition of the city’s budget challenges and employee concessions.
Olivares, a retired Santa Rosa police lieutenant, said he has seen the impact budget cuts have had on his former city colleagues and felt an “obligation to do my part.”
Ernesto Olivares
“I believe I have to lead by example,” Olivares said Wednesday.
Olivares, who is up for re-election in November, said he didn’t make his decision or time the announcement for political reasons.
Instead, he said it was a “personal choice” he made after realizing city employees were again being asked to take concessions — and will need to do so again — while he enjoys an enviable public pension.
“I realized my situation is different,” Olivares said.
Olivares, 54, worked for the Santa Rosa Police Department for nearly 30 years, retiring from the city in 2008 just before he was elected to the council. He earned a pension of $128,440 last year.
As a councilman he made $9,600 per year and got a salary bump when he became mayor in 2010.
He will continue to receive health benefits through the city, paying $4,209 per year while the city pays $16,836 annually, according to Human Resources Director Fran Elm.
Olivares first said he intends to forego his salary at the beginning of Tuesday’s City Council meeting.
Councilman Gary Wysocky, who frequently disagrees with Olivares, noted that the move only affects Olivares’ salary, not his pension.
Wysocky later suggested the move was politically motivated, adding that Olivares could save the city a great deal more money if he’d get tougher on containing pension costs.
“If he really wants to show leadership and meaningful solutions, perhaps that’s where he should look,” Wysocky said.
But Olivares, who said he grew up “dirt poor” in Mexico and was lucky enough to have a successful career in law enforcement, said witnessing first hand the impact of cuts on employees made him want to do something.
“It’s not easy sitting in closed sessions dealing with people’s lives,” Olivares said.
Subscribe by Email
Follow us on Twitter
If Oliveras didn’t take a dime for being mayor he would still be overpaid.
@John – you conveniently glossed over S.R.’s more lucrative pension formula of 3% @ 50 or even 3% @ 55. But let’s compare Battalion Chief pay, then. Fremont has 50,000 more people, with a higher cost of living, but Santa Rosa pays higher. Fremont Battalion Chief salary is $116,251 – $141,307 http://agency.governmentjobs.com/fremontca/default.cfm?action=viewclassspec&classSpecID=730425&agency=1775&viewOnly=yes. Santa Rosa Battalion Chief salary is $116,700 – $151,260 http://web1.ci.santa-rosa.ca.us/misc/rclisting/JobDesc.aspx?RC=3195. My point is that a significant number of management positions are paid above market for the size of this city.
@Retired Cop-I don’t think you’re greedy or that you don’t count. I’m sorry that discharging his weapon in the line of duty took a toll on Olivares. Fortunately, most Sonoma County Law Enforcement Officers retire without ever having to do so. So, compare the S.R. Police Lieutenant salary of $113,952 – $147,492 to that of Oakland (the 18th most violent city in the nation, pop 430,666) salary of $130,907-$144,063. Again, S.R. salaries are inflated, which leads to inflated pensions.
@David-Bob Andrews, former President of a pension and actuarial firm, warned us in 2010 that Santa Rosa’s unfunded pension liability was leading us to a fiscal disaster http://sonomacountytaxpayers.org/2010/04/20/cities-cant-afford-public-safety-super-pensions/. Furthermore, you made a statement that “once an employee retires, they are off the public books”. Does that mean that CalPers retirees and employees are going to cover the $500 billion in unfunded pension liabilities, or are you expecting the taxpayer to make up the difference?
@ Accountable – Battallion Chief is a lower position than Deputy Chief. Did you know that? If so what is your point in that paragraph?
Accountable needs to be accountable for their information. SRPD officers bargained with the city and gave up raises to pay only 9% of their retiremeent contributions, about the average in the 80′s. In 1991 they signed a multi-year contract, taking no raises for 4 years and the city picked up 3% of their retirement contributions for 3 years. That saved the city money and the officers take home pay and taxes went up slowly without raising the base pay. That was just a smart deal. Never say never. I remember the night Olivares went face to face with an armed suspect bent on suicide by cop. He wounded the guy and took him into custody when he could have easily and justifiabley taken his life. That took a toll on him. You may not like the amount of his retirement, but he earned it over the years. I retired before 3% @ 50, but according to people here, I guess I am just another greedy public employee, so I don’t count.
@Accountable: It depends on how you look at it. If you only measure his actual salary as his entire benefit package, then you’re right – his retirement was paid for from outside his salary. It’s a little different once you realize that at several points in history cities offered employees a choices like this: “You can have a $100 salary increase or you can have an $80 raise and we’ll pay $20 toward your retirement; which do you want?” This IS what happened. In this way, Lt. Olivares’ retirement was paid for with raises he never got and, in any event, was always being paid for from his overall wage & benefit package. The fact that the actual dollars may not have been formally deducted from a paycheck is completely irrelevant. He earned his retirement.
@David stubblebine – you fail to mention that Olivares never paid a dime toward his current $130,000 pension. As a former police officer, we the taxpayers of Santa Rosa were obligated to pay both the Employee & Employer portions toward his pension.
HOLY COW! You people would complain if you were being hung with a new rope! Who else in Santa Rosa has voluntary contributed thousands of dollars of their own assets as a gesture to the City’s hard times? If someone else has, I did not see it reported in the PD. Maybe this was a political move and maybe it wasn’t – but who cares?! If you don’t like the guy, then don’t vote for him no matter how much he gives back to the City out of his own pocket; but to minimize the fact he has done what NO ONE else has done is just petty.
And Thomas Brooks: You have it exactly wrong, despite what GAJ says. Public retirees who are later elected to a city council cannot vote any changes to the pension they are already receiving. Any votes they make impact current employees and future retirees only. Current law already requires that elected officials abstain from all votes (or even discussions) on matters that could impact pay or benefits they themselves are receiving that other council members are not – which is what you were asking for, wasn’t it?
Finally, this false belief that public pensioners are still living on the taxpayer’s dime seems to be proliferating (“Taxpayer”). Public pensioners, especially CalPERS retirees like Mr. Olivares, are paid from proceeds collected and invested during their working years as part of their pay and benefits packages. The retirement money public agencies are paying NOW is for FUTURE retirees, i.e., for current employees. Once an employee retires, they are off the public books. I understand that the current political discussion has many voices asking to reduce the benefit for future retirees in order to reduce how much the public will have to pay to fund those pensions, but the pensions of those who have already retired are unaffected. None of Mr. Olivares’ votes will change his own pension benefits nor could they even if he wanted to.
Thank you Mayor Ernesto Olivares, you are a man with integrity…thank you for your leadership! You are making a difference by leading by example.
Wysocky, what are you doing to make a difference? Not much I see…all talk with your continued negative comments!
Like the vast majority here stated, pension crisis is the real issue. We must make pensions concur with Social Security with similar payouts. Simple math. The current pension payouts are obscene and insulting to the population who do not have such generous retirement. Most of us get by on Social Security and part time jobs and still find time for charity work.
Olivares token gesture shows he is clearly as scared as Millison that the voters of Sonoma are going to follow San Jose’s lead and take the salary/pension control away from them. And we should! They blatantly lie that government workers in Sonoma County are paid salaries below market in exchange for pensions. The obscene salaries ratchet up the obscene pensions.
For example, Pomona and Santa Rosa are exactly the same size but pay drastically different: Santa Rosa Human Resource Analyst salary $69,900 – $92,700, pension 3% @ 60, while a Pomona Human Resource Analyst salary $59,568 – $72,420, pension 2% @ 55.
Even worse, San Francisco has 856,000 people and Santa Rosa has 163,000. A San Francisco Battallion Chief, Fire Suppression makes $173,446, pension 2.7% @ 55, while the Santa Rosa Deputy Fire Chief – Fire Marshall makes $135,120 – $173,700, pension 3% @ 50. In what alternate universe are we in Sonoma County living?
@GAJ – The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors salary is indeed obscene. But they aren’t the only overpaid County employee. A current job posting for a HRIS Manager has the salary at $87,868 – $106,819, pension 3% @ 60. Contra Costa County, pop 1,073,055, has the same position for $73,158 – $88,924, pension 2% @ 55.
Here is an alert to Sonoma County and Santa Rosa leaders, bring the salaries and pensions down or you will see recalls and ballot measures. We are fed up!!!
A drop in the bucket. Be a real leader and slash your six figure pension.
Santa Rosa population is 168,000…Council members make $10,000, no retirement.
Sonoma County population is 485,000…Supervisors make $134,000…3%@60 retirement.
I don’t think we should give the Council a raise or increase their benefits…we should slash the pay and bennies for the Superviors.
Based on population, and indexed to Santa Rosa Council pay, the Sups should be getting under $50,000/year.
This is a brazenly political move. Olivares doesn’t need the extra 14k a year while living off his generous cop pension. In fact, this is the exact opposite of what Santa Rosa needs. We need a full-time city council, not this half-time council fit for a city of less than a 100,000 people. District elections and better pay for city councilmembers will result in a more diverse and representative council. As it stands now, only retirees or otherwise wealthy individuals have the ability and time to serve on the council. Time to move into the 21st century and accept that Santa Rosa is no longer a small town.
Ho hum. If I were earning almost $130k in retirement, it wouldn’t be any skin off my nose either to give up $14k FIVE MONTHS BEFORE I SEEK RE-ELECTION. And then I too could bask in the glory of being so magnanimous.
@Thomas Brooks.
You are EXACTLY correct.
Do you think he would do the same if he wasn’t also pulling down a $100,000-plus pension from the City?
The real problem is retired and former public employees sitting on elected city council and boards of supervisor boards voting on pension benefit increases they are receiving.
This is happening all over California. Healdsburg has 3 retired city public safety employees sitting on the city council and there are many more examples including the Mayor of Santa Rosa.
By law, these retirees should be prohibited from discussing or voting on pension benefits, wage increases and working conditions for public employees working in their municipality special district or county at council, district or board meetings.
Some level of objectivity or at least the appearance of objectivity must be the standard. It certainly isn’t now.
This isn’t political? Give me a break. The key sentence in this whole story is “up for re-election in November”.
When the city has an unfunded pension liability over $100 million who cares about a few thousand. Only idiots take this as meaningful. $14,400/year is not even a calculable fraction of the ticking pension bomb. Yet, morons will see this and re-elect him. Gotta love how stupid politicians think the voters are. The problem is that the voters keep reinforcing the belief by re-electing them.
Gracious me, Mr Wysocki where is the gratitude? It may not be enough for you, but Mr. Oliveras did return his mayors’ pay to the city coffers. Will you follow suit, pitch in to help your city finances?
Just what would the right amount of money each employee give back to satisfy you? You’re an accountant, give us a dollar figure.
Finally someone in leadership sets a positive example.
Sure it’s only $14,400 but it’s a start.
Time for the County Supervisors to step up and set an example as well.
After all they make TEN TIMES what the Mayor does which is beyond belief.
The Sups should not only make concessions on their pay but completely eliminate their exorbitant Pensions altogether!
3% per year vesting and they can collect starting at 60 is ridiculous for a position that should NOT be a career.