Town Square

Post a New Topic

Guest opinion: City isn't really living within its means

Original post made on Aug 19, 2011

I'd like to point out an oversight in your "S&P Downgrade" op-ed you published last week. The discussion with city management leaves the reader with the impression that Pleasanton debt is carefully managed and the city has a balanced budget requirement that helps keep debt in check. The facts suggest otherwise.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, August 19, 2011, 12:00 AM

Comments (20)

Posted by I agree, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 19, 2011 at 2:18 pm

I watched the council meeting and the actuary's presentation on CalPERS/Pleasanton's pension plan and I couldn't be more alarmed. We have a big problem that needs addressing and the sooner the better, assuming it isn't already too late. The picture he painted of our city's pension plans isn't pretty.


Posted by truth, a resident of Bridle Creek
on Aug 19, 2011 at 2:41 pm

Please get ALL the true facts before you determine what if any problem exists.


Posted by the problem exists, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 19, 2011 at 3:05 pm

"Please get ALL the true facts before you determine what if any problem exists."

I give, what facts are you refering to?

I watched the council meeting. The city brought in an actuary that was called a pension expert who has advised cities up and down the state regarding CalPERS pension plans. Glad I watched because up until this point the issue has been a bit confusing. What the actuary presented was nothing less than a disaster in the making.

If you haven't watched his prensentation you should do so. If you have, what additional facts are you refering to? What I heard, in a nutshell, is that pension costs are going to "continue to rise for a long, long time".


Posted by Hugh, a resident of Danbury Park
on Aug 19, 2011 at 3:24 pm

Bart,

Our current Mayor and Council are just as bad as the ones we had in the early 2000's. Just look at the Climate plan they passed without a single no vote. They do absolutely no indepth evaluation of anything because possibly they are not equiped to do so because of their backgrounds. It is absolutely frightening when you think of the complete lack of controls on them. I do not know who is worse them or the school board. What is so hard to understand about not having money?


Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore
on Aug 19, 2011 at 4:19 pm

What's so bad about living beyond your means? That's what American business is all about. It keeps some businesses afloat!

Even collection agencies can't harass consumer who owe money. Lots of businesses have to suck it up and moveon.com. I rest my case.


Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore
on Aug 19, 2011 at 4:20 pm

Correction: Even a collection agency can't harass a consumer who owes money. tee hee hee, tee hee hee...


Posted by S-, a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on Aug 19, 2011 at 4:51 pm

"What's so bad about living beyond your means? That's what American business is all about. It keeps some businesses afloat!"

There is a distinction between business investment in future revenue streams and city government racking up huge unfunded debt for past services. The business would go bankrupt if they were to base their price strategy on flawed expense recognition. The city will just ask taxpayers for money or reduce service levels. Those are really their only two options.

If you were running a business two things that would cause you great stress - other than realizing you were selling your product/service at less than cost because you were providing off-balance sheet compensation that your accountant forget to mention but is now coming due - are raising prices for the same amount of service and/or cutting service levels but charging the same rate.

The business would struggle or go bankrupt. The city will look for ways to increase fees & taxes while cutting service levels. The taxpayers won't have an option to look at competing businesses for reduced rates on service because the city is a monopoly service provider.

That is why it is so IMPORTANT for THIS CITY COUNCIL to get the PENSION ISSUE UNDER CONTROL. And that IS why it is SO IMPORTANT for Taxpayers to Pay Attention to this issue


Posted by Concerned, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 19, 2011 at 5:32 pm

With the big drop in the market over the past month the current deficit is probably over $200 million. Starting next year cities will have to account for this and it will drop our credit rating like a stone. Police and Fire need to pay their full 9%. The City has been paying this for the past decade on top of the 24% City share. In the private sector the max.match is usually 5%. We are on the verge of disaster. The actuary said that even with returns well in excess of the assumed 7.75% the liabilities will increase. We have dropped over 15% in the last month for a net change in excess of that compared to the assumptions. I can't believe that we are still fiddling while P'town burns. Maybe it will take an initiative pointing out the facts to the disinterested public.


Posted by What we pay for, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 19, 2011 at 6:08 pm

These pension numbers are monthly & annual numbers. They only represent the employees that receive six figure pensions. Employees also receive 2% cost of living increases every year and their spouse can receive 75% of that amount upon the retirees death. Many members not on this list will be when the 2% annual cost of living increases their pension. They also receive retiree medical on top of the lifetime pensions. The current annual cost of the cadillac employee union medical plans is about 15K for employee + spouse, and 18K annualy for the employee + two dependants.

We aren't talking about people that retire at the social security required age of 65. People getting this city funded/taxpayer funded deal can retire at at age 50, or 55, and receive these benefits for more years than they actually worked - with a lot more pay.

BRAMELL, THOMAS $10,569.50 $126,834.00 PLEASANTON
BUCKOVIC, JOSEPH $9,595.19 $115,142.28 PLEASANTON
CARLSON, ERIC $10,771.36 $129,256.32 PLEASANTON
CHAPMAN, SEAN $9,855.65 $118,267.80 PLEASANTON
COUSINEAU, CARL $9,266.81 $111,201.72 PLEASANTON
CROLL, DOUGLAS $10,137.49 $121,649.88 PLEASANTON
DICKINSON, CHRISTOPHE $9,274.32 $111,291.84 PLEASANTON
EASTMAN, WILLIAM $9,966.59 $119,599.08 PLEASANTON
GARY, STEWART $13,431.30 $161,175.60 PLEASANTON
GOODWIN, JOHN $11,712.36 $140,548.32 PLEASANTON
HALVORSEN, WILLIAM $8,550.00 $102,600.00 PLEASANTON
HELMS, PAUL $8,865.64 $106,387.68 PLEASANTON
ISERSON, JERRY $11,200.31 $134,403.72 PLEASANTON
KIELY, DENNIS $8,474.15 $101,689.80 PLEASANTON
LAURENCE, MAUREEN $8,955.50 $107,466.00 PLEASANTON
LYNESS, ROBERT $10,887.35 $130,648.20 PLEASANTON
MADRID, SALLY $9,054.73 $108,656.76 PLEASANTON
MOLKENBUHR, PAUL $8,726.88 $104,722.56 PLEASANTON
NEAL, TIMOTHY $14,316.04 $171,792.48 PLEASANTON
PHELPS, KRISTEN $9,105.34 $109,264.08 PLEASANTON
RADFORD, DAVID $10,661.33 $127,935.96 PLEASANTON
ROSE, GARY $8,497.48 $101,969.76 PLEASANTON
ROSS, STEVEN $8,755.43 $105,065.16 PLEASANTON
ROSSI, SUSAN $12,759.43 $153,113.16 PLEASANTON
ROUSH, MICHAEL $13,445.05 $161,340.60 PLEASANTON
SAULSBURY, DONALD $8,576.44 $102,917.28 PLEASANTON
STJOHN, MICHAEL $9,461.25 $113,535.00 PLEASANTON
SWIFT, BRIAN $10,949.07 $131,388.84 PLEASANTON
TOLLEFSON, GARY $12,090.89 $145,090.68 PLEASANTON
WALSH, WILLIAM $8,430.23 $101,162.76 PLEASANTON
WILSON, ROBERT $12,695.70 $152,348.40 PLEASANTON
WIXOM, GREGORY $8,765.64 $105,187.68 PLEASANTON
WOLFE, JAMES $11,801.51 $141,618.12 PLEASANTON


Posted by Part two - PUSD, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 19, 2011 at 6:10 pm

CASEY, JOHN M $12,979.69 $155,756.28 PLEASANTON UNIFIED
COUPE, WILLIAM S $10,415.89 $124,990.68 PLEASANTON UNIFIED
DELLANINI, SALLY R $9,282.34 $111,388.08 PLEASANTON UNIFIED
DELLANINI, STEVEN J $8,423.61 $101,083.32 PLEASANTON UNIFIED
DONALDSON, MERLIN C $14,843.33 $178,119.96 PLEASANTON UNIFIED
JAMES, BILL $9,110.25 $109,323.00 PLEASANTON UNIFIED
KETTWIG, JOSEPH L $9,141.41 $109,696.92 PLEASANTON UNIFIED
KINDRED, KATHLEEN $9,700.11 $116,401.32 PLEASANTON UNIFIED
KREITZ, ROBERT W $12,878.02 $154,536.24 PLEASANTON UNIFIED
KROETCH, ROBERT M $11,713.99 $140,567.88 PLEASANTON UNIFIED
LEONARD, PATRICIA A $8,892.37 $106,708.44 PLEASANTON UNIFIED
MAHER, STEPHEN P $11,460.60 $137,527.20 PLEASANTON UNIFIED
PUPPIONE, RICHARD J $8,406.00 $100,872.00 PLEASANTON UNIFIED
RADULOVICH, WILLIAM M $9,625.54 $115,506.48 PLEASANTON UNIFIED
SCHACHT, ANDREE M $8,925.01 $107,100.12 PLEASANTON UNIFIED


Posted by Pat 3 - alameda county, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 19, 2011 at 6:16 pm

We contribute to this too

ALTEMUS, RICHARD $9,493.61 $113,923.32 ALAMEDA COUNTY
ANANOS, MICHAEL $8,810.19 $105,722.28 ALAMEDA COUNTY
BANCHERO, JOSEPH $8,448.51 $101,382.12 ALAMEDA COUNTY
BAUMAN, RODGER $9,297.27 $111,567.24 ALAMEDA COUNTY
BEARD, JAMES $10,267.49 $123,209.88 ALAMEDA COUNTY
BECKER, MICHAEL $8,785.72 $105,428.64 ALAMEDA COUNTY
BLANCHARD, MARK $11,512.89 $138,154.68 ALAMEDA COUNTY
BOTTORFF, EDWARD $10,054.37 $120,652.44 ALAMEDA COUNTY
BRADLEY, BRUCE $8,761.90 $105,142.80 ALAMEDA COUNTY
BROWN, RICHARD $9,085.15 $109,021.80 ALAMEDA COUNTY
BROWN, STEVEN $9,710.53 $116,526.36 ALAMEDA COUNTY
CASTRO, THOMAS $8,917.61 $107,011.32 ALAMEDA COUNTY
CENTONI, GARRETT $9,532.50 $114,390.00 ALAMEDA COUNTY
CHASE, WILLIAM $8,657.42 $103,889.04 ALAMEDA COUNTY
CHEN RAMIREZ, ELAINE $11,138.82 $133,665.84 ALAMEDA COUNTY
CONOVER, TED $9,040.47 $108,485.64 ALAMEDA COUNTY
CYSEWSKI, MICHAEL $9,903.02 $118,836.24 ALAMEDA COUNTY
DAVISON, KENNETH $8,974.93 $107,699.16 ALAMEDA COUNTY
DELPIANO, PAUL $9,297.50 $111,570.00 ALAMEDA COUNTY
DILLARD, THOMAS $8,983.64 $107,803.68 ALAMEDA COUNTY
FARRELLE, STANLEY $8,433.96 $101,207.52 ALAMEDA COUNTY
FERDINAND, JAMES $9,122.86 $109,474.32 ALAMEDA COUNTY
FERNANDEZ, GREG $9,651.84 $115,822.08 ALAMEDA COUNTY
GHEZZI, BRUCE $10,115.94 $121,391.28 ALAMEDA COUNTY
GIBBONS, PAT $12,419.63 $149,035.56 ALAMEDA COUNTY
GLASSBERG, ARNOLD $15,804.33 $189,651.96 ALAMEDA COUNTY
HALL, RACHEL $9,431.28 $113,175.36 ALAMEDA COUNTY
HAMPEL, CHARLES $8,893.53 $106,722.36 ALAMEDA COUNTY
HAYES, KENWARD $8,948.59 $107,383.08 ALAMEDA COUNTY
HENTHORN, GARY $9,132.27 $109,587.24 ALAMEDA COUNTY
HILL, CRAIG $9,503.29 $114,039.48 ALAMEDA COUNTY
INGLE, JAMES $9,072.31 $108,867.72 ALAMEDA COUNTY
JOHN PURCHIO, JAMES $9,851.27 $118,215.24 ALAMEDA COUNTY
JOHNSTON, JAMES $9,977.30 $119,727.60 ALAMEDA COUNTY
KLEVENO, ALVIN $9,084.10 $109,009.20 ALAMEDA COUNTY
KOLDA, RICHARD $9,101.87 $109,222.44 ALAMEDA COUNTY
KUNTZ, RONALD $8,500.04 $102,000.48 ALAMEDA COUNTY
LAKES, JAMES $8,612.58 $103,350.96 ALAMEDA COUNTY
LEEN, TERRENCE $8,939.48 $107,273.76 ALAMEDA COUNTY
LENAHAN, RICHARD $10,873.61 $130,483.32 ALAMEDA COUNTY
LEPLEY, SANDRA $11,897.03 $142,764.36 ALAMEDA COUNTY
MCCAMMON, WILLIAM $15,600.37 $187,204.44 ALAMEDA COUNTY
MCGHIE, GARRY $8,521.46 $102,257.52 ALAMEDA COUNTY
MCKENNA, BRIAN $10,663.61 $127,963.32 ALAMEDA COUNTY
NAAS, JODY $10,813.75 $129,765.00 ALAMEDA COUNTY
ORR, LENNIE $9,989.81 $119,877.72 ALAMEDA COUNTY
PEYTON, MARGARET $8,450.67 $101,408.04 ALAMEDA COUNTY
PIRAINO, PAUL $15,418.66 $185,023.92 ALAMEDA COUNTY
RAMSEY, JEFFERY $10,840.24 $130,082.88 ALAMEDA COUNTY
REYNOLDS, JAMES $9,443.61 $113,323.32 ALAMEDA COUNTY
SALAICES, RICKY $8,482.06 $101,784.72 ALAMEDA COUNTY
SILVA, STANLEY $9,513.65 $114,163.80 ALAMEDA COUNTY
STEPMAN, LYLE $9,250.32 $111,003.84 ALAMEDA COUNTY
STUTZMAN, ROY $8,605.90 $103,270.80 ALAMEDA COUNTY
SUN, COSSETTE $8,810.10 $105,721.20 ALAMEDA COUNTY
SUTTERLEY, CHRISTOPHER $8,629.41 $103,552.92 ALAMEDA COUNTY
TERZIAN, TIMOTHY $8,368.46 $100,421.52 ALAMEDA COUNTY
TRETHAN, SHARON $8,856.78 $106,281.36 ALAMEDA COUNTY
TRUJILLO, WILLIAM $9,231.21 $110,774.52 ALAMEDA COUNTY
WALSTON, DEANNA $10,635.85 $127,630.20 ALAMEDA COUNTY
WHEELER, DAVID $10,773.06 $129,276.72 ALAMEDA COUNTY
WOOD, WILLIAM $9,585.90 $115,030.80 ALAMEDA COUNTY
YASITIS, PETER $8,443.04 $101,316.48 ALAMEDA COUNTY
YOUNG, JUDY $9,448.89 $113,386.68 ALAMEDA COUNTY


Posted by Part 4, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 19, 2011 at 6:20 pm

The State employees, Prison Guards, EBMUD, Etc...we contribute to their pension funds and lifetime medical also...but the list is too long to post.


Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore
on Aug 19, 2011 at 7:25 pm

It seems to me that Plutonians are Jealous Bugs! So many residents brag about how well heeled they are but fall apart if another person receives a friendly pension. So when hard times hit, you act like cry babies...get over it...it's time to moveon.com...

i rest my case...


Posted by all, a resident of Downtown
on Aug 19, 2011 at 7:52 pm

these people are just ripping us off and should go back to work. this is disgusting.


Posted by To: Cholo, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 19, 2011 at 8:01 pm

So what you are saying is that you don't have an original or independant thought. Have you watched the video of the Pleasanton coucil meeting? Have you listened to what the actuary had to say? Do you understand how the underfunded pension liability & almost completely unfunded retiree helth care liability will have detrimental consequences for taxpayers, city employees, service levels, future city amenities, and our school district.

The Mayor of San Jose said that these very same underfunded/unfunded costs will require layoffs of 50% of city employees to the extent they will no longer have the ability to provide a minimum level of service.

I guess your OK with Pleasanton following the path of San Jose. And for anybody that thinks San Jose is in worse shape than Pleasanton they don't understand the difference between the San Jose pension plan and the CalPERS plan. I work in SJ and have been following the issue. Pleasanton is probably in worse shape. The only difference that I see is Pleasanton's cost are lower because the payment terms are about 5 times longer.


Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore
on Aug 19, 2011 at 8:40 pm

If you didn't wantemmployees to receive a large pension, something should have been done about it sooner. Employees were allowed to work hard and to believe that they would receive a pension when they retired. Now, they're the bad guys and their names are published online?

Your explanation means nothing to me. If employers don't want employees to receive large pensions, it may be too late. Maybe nobody in the USA should receive any benefits package, that way it seems to me that it's more fair. The employee comes in with nothing promised and retires with nothing in the bank. ta-ta...


Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore
on Aug 19, 2011 at 8:47 pm

I forgot to say that if you don't like the way things are going in the USA, have you considered purchasing a one-way ticket to the country where your ancestors came from?

If you can't manage a silly hissy fit...git...I mean it! BEGONE! Just because some employees made out better than you, you're upset? get a life.

signed,

tee hee hee, tee hee hee...


Posted by To: cholo, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 19, 2011 at 9:11 pm

The cost of the pension plan, absent unfunded liabilities & the taxpayers paying the employee contribution, is about 16% of payroll. Why are taxpayers currently paying the discounted rate of about 42% of payroll. How does that compare to the original cost of 16% of payroll, or the 3% match that is found in private sector 401K plans.

How do you justify this?


Posted by Caesar, a resident of Charter Oaks
on Aug 19, 2011 at 10:52 pm

I think it's about 85% the individual's fault, 10% union's, and 5% corrupt politicians.

Everything else is a unfunded liability. I'm broke. These conditions are not sustainable. There is no accountability. There is no responsibility. I'm these people's boss. My children are enslaved. We are about to be innundated by a giant tsunami. They don't do this in the private sector. Public employees don't work. Unions are corrupt.


Posted by Hummm!, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 20, 2011 at 12:07 am

When do these yokels take a rest? The sky is falling, yet government workers have a hard time understanding that something has to change. It must be nice having our money pay for incompetence. I only wish my small business was able to run a deficit and merely put out my hand to cover the costs of mismanagement. No such luck. I have to face reality.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

To post your comment, please click here to login

Remember me?
Forgot Password?
or register. This topic is only for those who have signed up to participate by providing their email address and establishing a screen name.

Tough new rules on water are necessary
By Tim Hunt | 10 comments | 1,112 views

Circumstances without Pomp
By Roz Rogoff | 3 comments | 964 views

‘Much Ado’ or is it Adios for ObamaCare?
By Tom Cushing | 4 comments | 234 views