|
A commentary by Robert Suhr in Scotts Valley
Earlier this year, we addressed the separate tax for libraries. Now the county is proposing separate neighborhood taxes for road maintenance.
Rather than scheduling expenditures through an annual repair program for the county’s roads, the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors has spent the taxpayers’ dollars kowtowing to the local government union’s insatiable demands, as evidenced by Santa Cruz County’s lavish retirement plans.
A proposal to fund road repairs with neighborhood levies, as opposed to using the general fund, is under consideration.
County financing, as originally designed, was to have the employees pay 7 percent of their payroll toward their retirement, unless they were in public safety — then the amount was 9 percent. The county then paid whatever would be required additionally to keep the commitment solvent. This fiscal year, that county percentage is 12.2 percent, except for the public safety people, for whom it is 25.6 percent.
For example, a deputy assessor with this year’s salary of $107,000 should pay $7,490 toward his or her retirement, and the county would pay $13,051. However, the original program has changed because of the power of government unions — the county pays the employees’ portion as well as its own.
In the example, you can see that means the taxpayers’ total funding for this individual, and this year alone, is $20,541. But this isn’t all. There is another $6,324 for the Social Security tax, making a total of $26,865 — all paid by county taxpayers.
This provides a retirement program in which retirees receive 96.7 percent of their salary at age 65.
With our deputy assessor and the $107,000 annual salary, or $8,916 on a monthly basis, the individual’s retirement is $8,498 per month. But when you add the additional $2,185 for the monthly Social Security benefit, also payable at age 65, it brings it up to $10,683.
When his or her spouse is 65, they will receive a further payment of $1,092.50 a month — a total of $11,775, compared with $8,916 while working.
That is 32 percent more pay than when the person was on the job. And all paid by the taxpayers.
Why should public employees enjoy such a retirement benefit at the expense of the private sector?
With the exception of California, all other 49 states in the union arrive at their retirement by basing it on the average salary paid for the last three years or the last five years of employment. California has used a base of the final three years. However, on Oct. 1, 2001, the board of supervisors passed what is known as the “Single Highest Year” retirement program, which changed the calculation from the average of an employee’s last three year’s compensation to the highest one year. This, naturally, substantially increases already bloated retirement benefits.
That sweetener costs the county about $1.35 million annually.
In June of 1997, a contract for the law enforcement group was passed by the supervisors, changing the payment procedure for the deputy sheriffs and jailers. The new method had those employees assuming the payment of their 9 percent portion, and their salary was increased to take into account that cost. This provided an additional 9 percent increase in retirement benefits, for the pension is based on salary received.
In 2001, the same program was included in the labor contracts covering 410 county administrators and county attorneys. At first blush, it appears to be a wash, but once it is paid by the employee through this clever salary increase device, the Social Security tax, worker’s compensation cost, plus unemployment insurance must all be added to the overall cost, as the expense is now salary.
Based on current salaries, the additional cost for the county taxpayers this year is about $450,000.
The just published 2007-08 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Report states “during calendar years 2006 and 2007… (there were) 1,733 total county hires for that time period.”
With some 2,500 county employees, that indicates a turnover of one-third annually. With the two superfluous costs indicated above of $1.35 million and $450,000, the total cost is $1.8 million and increasing annually.
The board of supervisors should amend these labor contracts and terminate this unnecessary expense for new hires. By the third year, the savings would be close to $2 million.
It has always been my thinking that politicians do not spend my money as carefully as I do. With the hope that our local supervisors will prove me wrong, the following challenge is made:
I will host a dinner for any supervisor whose own business has a retirement program as opulent as the one outlined above. This dinner will be at the supervisor’s restaurant of choice and will include three friends or colleagues.
In fact, to show how outlandish the retirement program is, I will gladly include this offer to any for profit entity in the county that has a retirement program as equally lavish.
Let the replies begin.
Robert Suhr is a Scotts Valley resident.
 |
Post New Event
Subscribe to this comment's feed
