Will San Jose, San Diego lead pension reform?

One reason San Jose and San Diego will vote on widely watched pension reforms Tuesday: Retirement costs are eating up about 20 percent of their general fund budgets, well above the old norm.

A commission on public employee retirement appointed by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger reported in 2008 that the average pension cost was 4 percent of the general fund.

The state’s second largest city, San Diego, and it’s third largest city, San Jose, have made cuts in police, fire and other services that are painfully clear to residents, and rising retirement costs are getting much of the blame.

Public pension amounts in California are based on what unions are able to obtain through collective bargaining, not what is needed for a reasonable retirement. There is a growing gap with workers in the private sector, where retirement benefits are shrinking.

Many public employees can retire at age 50 or 55 and receive a generous pension based on years of service (up to 90 percent of pay for most police and firefighters) with inflation adjustments, health coverage and an expectation of living another three decades.

A state ballot measure, Proposition 21 in 1984, lifted a lid that kept most pension fund investments in predictable bonds, enabling promises that more generous pensions could be paid by investments in volatile stocks and other higher-yielding assets.

But after a decade of below-target investment earnings, government retirement costs are going up and there is a national debate about whether public pensions are “sustainable.”

Much of the debate is focused on pension funding levels, now often about 70 percent of projected assets needed to pay future pensions, and on pension debt or “unfunded liability,” an alarming $1 trillion to $3 trillion in some national estimates.

These two measurements of pension system financial health are based on forecasts of investment earnings during the next several decades. And like any prediction of the future, earnings forecasts are far from certain.

An example of how earnings forecasts make big changes in pension funding levels and debt can be seen in the annual valuation of the California State Teachers Retirement System prepared by Milliman actuaries in April.

As of last June 30 CalSTRS had a funding level of 69 percent and a debt or unfunded liability of $64.5 billion, mainly due to earnings averaging 5.5 percent during the last decade. CalSTRS has lowered its earnings forecast from 8 to 7.5 percent.

The actuaries estimate that the total annual contribution to CalSTRS from employers and employees, 19.4 percent of pay, would have to increase by an additional 12.9 percent of pay each year (about $3.25 billion) to reach full funding in 30 years.

Now here’s the potential power of earnings. As the nation’s second largest public pension system, CalSTRS had an investment portfolio valued at $154 billion on April 30, still down from a peak of $180 billion in 2007.

But without a contribution increase, the actuaries estimate, CalSTRS could reach full funding in 30 years if earnings average 9.6 percent — or CalSTRS could be fully funded in just five years if earnings average 16 percent, and the big debt vanishes.

Of course, if earnings are below the new 7.5 percent target, as critics of public pensions think is likely, the funding shortfall widens. But the point is that earning forecasts are uncertain.

No one knows the future. So earnings in the decades ahead, which are expected to provide about two-thirds of the money needed to pay pensions, are open to debate. And in an argument, one method-derived guess is as good as another, until proven wrong.

What San Diego and San Jose share is the “real” number of current pension costs, not alarming but possibly mirage-like projections open to debate. Pension costs are already eating up a fifth of their general funds and diverting money from other services.

In San Diego, the annual required pension contribution from all funds went from $137.6 million in fiscal 2006 to $231 million this year and is projected to be about $500 million in fiscal 2025.

In San Jose, the annual retirement contribution for pensions and retiree health from all funds went from $73 million in 2001 to $247 million this year and is projected to grow about 27 percent by 2016.

All public pension systems in California share a cost-cutting problem. Powerful pension boards can set an actuarially determined contribution rate each year that must be paid by government employers. (An exception is CalSTRS, which needs legislation.)

A series of court decisions are widely believed to mean that pensions promised public employees on the date of hire become “vested rights,” protected by contract law, that can’t be cut without providing an offsetting benefit of equal value.

Most attempts to cut pension costs are bargained with unions and 1) give new hires a lower pension and 2) raise employee contributions, though CalSTRS and others say this too must be offset by a benefit of equal value.

The nonpartisan Little Hoover Commission recommended legislation giving employers a way to cut the pensions current workers earn in the future, while protecting pensions already earned, which would likely result in the courts revisiting the issue.

Now the measures in San Diego and San Jose, backed by mayors Jerry Sanders and Chuck Reed, are widely watched because they could cut pensions earned in the future by current workers, but through different methods.

The San Diego measure gives new hires, except police, a 401(k)-style investment plan instead of a pension. The city would bargain with unions for a six-year freeze on pay used to calculate pensions, which can be overridden by a two-thirds city council vote.

San Diego has struggled with a self-inflicted pension “crisis” following deals in 1996 and 2002 that cut city pension contributions and gave employees bigger pensions. Some of the fallout has been lawsuits, a moratorium on bond sales and budget cuts.

In a race for San Diego mayor, the leader in a poll last week, Councilman Carl DeMaio, is a key sponsor of the pension reform measure. The runnerup in the poll, U.S. Rep. Bob Filner, has his own pension reform proposal based on issuing bonds.

The San Diego pension measure did not spark the heated and expensive campaign battle expected by some. A Channel 10 News/USA Survey last week showed Proposition B favored by 57 percent of voters and opposed by 21 percent with 22 percent undecided.

The San Jose measure would give current workers the option of switching to a lower pension or staying in the current plan and paying off pension debt with annual contribution increases of 4 percent of pay, capped at 16 percent or half the debt cost.

A union-backed attempt to unseat Councilwoman Rose Herrera could undermine the slim council majority backing Reed’s pension reform. A poll done for the Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce two weeks ago showed Measure B leading with 55 percent of the vote, 23 percent opposed and 22 percent undecided.

In the national media over the weekend, the San Jose measure was the subject of a lengthy page-one story in the Wall Street Journal. A Reuters story said the San Jose decision could “set an important precedent for many other cities, not only in California but across the nation.”

Reporter Ed Mendel covered the Capitol in Sacramento for nearly three decades, most recently for the San Diego Union-Tribune. More stories are at https://calpensions.com/ Posted 4 Jun 12

15 Responses to “Will San Jose, San Diego lead pension reform?”

  1. gery katona Says:

    In San Diego, where I live, the unions and city agreed to raise pensions twice in lieu of the city making overdue contributions to the plans due to “short term” budget constraints. Are you kidding me? And people weren’t jailed? Talk about kicking the can down the street and burdening future generations. Obviously, this needs to be corrected. But similar negotiations have taken place all around the country and must be rolled back to something more fair to everyone. It’s amazing the stuff that goes on when people doing the negotiating are making decisions with other peoples money. Zero oversight and corruption on a scale of any 3rd world country.

  2. Ann Meyers Says:

    “A series of court decisions are widely believed to mean that pensions promised public employees on the date of hire become “vested rights,” protected by contract law, that can’t be cut without providing an offsetting benefit of equal value.” So if the date of hire is the standard then increases following that date…?

  3. Steven Maviglio Says:

    An article on the 240 jurisdictions where pension issues are being solved — instead of two ballot box measures — would better reflect what’s really going on in California.

  4. Captain Says:

    “Steven Maviglio Says: An article on the 240 jurisdictions where pension issues are being solved — instead of two ballot box measures — would better reflect what’s really going on in California.”

    Cut the BS Steven. Asking current employees to pay their portion of their pension benefits doesn’t elevate to the status of reform and, more importantly, doesn’t even begin to address the issues of EXCESSIVE benefits, massive unfunded liabilities, and a corrupt CalPERS Board.

    On a related note, CalPERS fiscal year began July 1, 2011 with 239.5 billion in assets. As of Friday’s market close CalPERS assets are 224.5 billion. 27 days to go before CalPERS closes the books on a very costly (for the taxpayers) FY 2011-12.

  5. SeeSaw Says:

    Corrup CalPERS Board? Documentation, please.

  6. SeeSaw Says:

    CalPERS benefits are not set by collective bargaining, Mr. Mendel, so stop the exaggeration and trying to mislead the public. CalPERS is over 80 years old and the public employee unions, in CA, have only been around for 44 years. The collective bargaining part deals with which pension formula the entity can afford to provide, and how the employer-employee split for contributions will be administered. Union membership is irrelevant when it comes to CalPERS. The majority of the six-figure retirees were high-level managers–no unions in the picture. You have beat the union-dead horse long enough!

  7. Ronald Stein Says:

    Without a business friendly CA, revenue will always be below those optimistic projections as the uneven playing field between public and private sectors DISCOURAGES the entrepreneurial spirit to start or expand businesses and get people back to work.

    It’s like walking across the street within the guidelines of the crosswalk and getting hit by a truck, you’re RIGHT but DEAD RIGHT.

    Legally, we may be obligated to pay those DEFINED benefits, but their unsustainability is killing the budget and discouraging new job creation as the entrepreneurs’ taxes and fees are contributing to paying for those defined entitlements that are not available in the private sector.

    “Defined benefit” programs are lucrative to the recipients, but unsustainable as they are funded by investments that do not get “defined rates of returns”.

    With the economy and jobs in the doldrums, entrepreneurs should be incentivized to get the job market moving, not dis-incentivized to pay more taxes to fund more government and more defined compensation and benefits to retiring government workers.

    The uneven playing field continues to prosper while new job creation suffers. Everyone needs to be on the same playing field with “defined CONTRIBUTIONS only”, and no guaranteed retirement compensation and benefits entitlements.

  8. cheryl Says:

    as far as I am concerned, the fire and police deserve the 90%———I realize I am swimming against the tide on this one. No, I never was either, nor any in my family. Must I remind you all that this group is “1st responders” in event of a crisis.———–are their abuses here and there, of course, as in everything——-but the nature of their job is essentially to some extent being “combat ready”, after a fashion—

  9. SeeSaw Says:

    “No”, to defined contributions only!
    “Yes”, to defined benefits for everyone!.

  10. UptightTO Says:

    Cheryl..90% at 50 makes no sence at all. I personally know of two public safety folk who’ve retired at 50 and have earned another government pension since. I too have great respect for what our Police and Firefighters do. However, I’ve grown weary of hearing of how much they sacrifice and how dedicated they are to public service when their union contracts are up for renegotiation.

  11. spension Says:

    “Public pension amounts in California are based on what unions are able to obtain through collective bargaining,….”

    What union represents Chris Edley (Boalt Hall Law School Dean) and others who have strongly appealed for busting the IRS limits on their UC pensions?

    There is another culture outside of unions that seeks unreasonable post-employment benefits: the executive culture in the US. Indeed that greed trickles down into the public unions.

    In the US executive culture, you get $10 million taxpayer funded bonuses after crashing the world economy and encouraging fraud on home loans.

  12. Ted Steele, Junior Petite Says:

    WELL said spension— that needs to be fixed first– will Mitt do it?? LOLOL Oh my !!!

  13. spension Says:

    Well, there it is… San Jose passed their pension reform 70% to 30% against, and San Diego 66% to 34%.

    Now the lawsuits will commence.

    So right in the above blog entry to attribute the problem to the change in 1984, where stock investments were allowed. The stock market is extremely volatile, and you can’t plan on getting its long-term average return, over even 30 or 40 years.

    You have to plan of the unlikely fluctuation that occurs infrequently.

    That didn’t happen, and instead, taxpayer funds were promised to make up the difference between average and poor stock market performance. Yes, binding contracts to do so, unwisely, were made by politicians, and maybe the courts will overturn the SJ and SD votes.

    But rank and file voters do know what happened. They got left holding the bag.

    Too easy to blame the unions… they aren’t the only ones who got greedy. The same greed is in US executive boardrooms, and it trickles down and justifies union greed.

    Republicans support public safety and prison guard unions, and have sometimes voted in the dead of night to keep the benefits high for those special interest groups. The other unions notice and go for the same, often with Democratic party support.

    The majority of union members (and even folks in executive boardrooms) work hard and do the right thing, but perhaps the real problem is that they don’t work to constrain their respective minorities from excess, just polluting the system for everyone.

  14. SteveF Says:

    Thank you for having the courage to speak up about the way all city employees EXCEPT FOR POLICE AND FIRE are on the chopping block with pension and legacy costs! I agree with you 100%. First-responders do put themselves at risk, but so do highway workers, bridge-builders, etc. etc. etc. In my view they have to share the sacrifice just as much as anyone else. Or are they better than the others? Some of them are real prima donnas.

  15. Jim Says:

    The goverment employees got too greedy, using tricks like sell back of vacation and sick leave in their last year at work so they could boost their highest year earnings which is what the retirement is based on. Citizens cannot afford to pay two full time salaries, one retired and one active, for each government employee,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: