Vallejo City Council creates citizen public safety committee

anon wrote:

<quoted text>
This is what Jom Davis said:
<quoted text>
You allege that the "unfunded liability" began with the change from 2%@50 to 3%@50. Stout says it was always there?

anon,

My guess is Jim Davis is confusing unfunded retiree health care benefits with the under funded pension plan. Retiree medical is completely unfunded, and have always been there. Payments are on the"pay-as-go-basis" which means the city doesn't fund the benefit until the person is retired and the bill comes do. In 2007 GASB recommended cities begin pre-paying for the benefit and many are doing just that, although it isn't a requirement. Vallejo can't afford to pre-pay.

On June 30, 2000, CalPERS Market Value funding ratio was 126.6% of liabilities. On June 30, 2001, CalPERS Market Value funding ratio was 104.6% of liabilities. On June 30, 2010, the latest data available from CalPERS, the Market Value funding ratio was 65.4%. And keep in mind pension experts consider any plan below 80% at risk, and that is one of the reasons why there is so much attention being paid to this topic; the other big issue being the rapidly increasing employer contribution rates.

Here are the most recent funding ratios for the Vallejo pension plans (as of June 30, 2010):

Miscellaneous Plan - 54.8%
Safety Plan - 56.1%

That is SIGNIFICANTLY below (about 18%) the already troubling CalPERS average funding level of 65.4%. It isn’t just Vallejo’s 241 million in unfunded liability that makes the problem so daunting, IMO, but also that Vallejo only has 55.5% of the assets needed to generate the required returns. By that I mean, if CalPERS earns their 7.75% target return on the 55.5% of assets they do have - they aren’t earning anything on the other 44.5% of assets they don’t have. That means the 241 million unfunded liability will grow by 7.75%, or about 18.7 million. CalPERS will then take that 18.7 million, using their 15 year smoothing policy, and spread the additional costs over those 15 years - on top of all the other additional costs. Then they will raise the employer contribution rate to reflect the additional 1.24 million expense (18.7 million/15 years) over a rolling 15 year period.

Calpers pension funding was underfunded in the mid 1990's. Beyond that the stockmarket had amazing growth and the calpers pension funding was benefited from it. In 2002 the market began its double dip decline back to the mid 90's levels (where calpers was underfunded). If you overlay the Dow Jones over the funding history of Calpers it makes much more sense to me that the current state of employer contributions lies at the feet of the Wall Street much more than 3%@50.

anon wrote:

Calpers pension funding was underfunded in the mid 1990's. Beyond that the stockmarket had amazing growth and the calpers pension funding was benefited from it. In 2002 the market began its double dip decline back to the mid 90's levels (where calpers was underfunded). If you overlay the Dow Jones over the funding history of Calpers it makes much more sense to me that the current state of employer contributions lies at the feet of the Wall Street much more than 3%@50.

anon,

I’m not sure you can support your claims. In the mid 90's, 1995 for instance, CalPERS was 95.6% funded. On June 30, 2000 CalPERS Market Value funding ratio was 126.6% of liabilities (126% funded). You go on to say that,“If you overlay the Dow Jones over the funding history of Calpers it makes much more sense to me that the current state of employer contributions lies at the feet of the Wall Street much more than 3%@50.” That just isn’t a true statement IMO.

The funding history of CalPERS and the Employer Contribution Rates are separate issues when using the 10 year time frame ending June 30, 2010. For now I will only address the funding history. Here is what has happened with both the DOW and CalPERS during the period of July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2010:

- the Dow declined from 10,521 to 10,465, for a decrease of .006 percent.
- CalPERS average funding over the same 10 years fell from 126.6 percent funded to 65.4 percent, or a loss of 48.3 percent.

While the S&P 500 did drop by 23% you can’t blame everything on the crooks that reside on Wall Street. You also can’t “overlay” the CalPERS funding history and the DOW and expect the charts to match up.

Regarding a point you’ve previously made, a 1% increase in the pension formula, as you put it (from 2@50 to 3@50), is really a 50% increase in the benefit/cost. Making that benefit retroactive puts it into an entirely different category because it instantaneously creates a liability. Is it possible that the 3@50 pension formula, CalPERS, and retroactive pension benefits all have something to do with the current problem? Can you explain why funding levels for the Vallejo pensions are 18% less then the average CalPERS fund?

Pensions eat tax Dollars wrote:

<quoted text>
Regarding a point you’ve previously made, a 1% increase in the pension formula, as you put it (from 2@50 to 3@50), is really a 50% increase in the benefit/cost.

That is not right. The payout from those two formulas, per $1000, would be $750 and $900 respectively. A 750:900 =+20%. The 2@50 had an escalator after 50 yrs of age that made it possible to reach 75%.

The year that Vallejo opted for the 3%@50 there was not a 20% increase in employer contributions let alone a 50% increase, as you imply. The reason for no increase lies in the health of the Dow Jones, at that time.

After the market downturn and bursting real estate bubble the employer contributions were going to increase regardless of 2@50 or 3@50.

The calculations can be an endless road with each side presenting point and counter point. The bottom line for me is that when we invest in American working families we invest in the future of this great country. American workers in general and our Vallejo fire and police families are the last investment I would opt to cut. Hugely wasteful projects like the "high speed" rail project, Solyndra, AB32 with all of its unnecessary spending wastefulness should all be eliminated first.

Vallejo should hold itself up and be proud of the fact the we have opted to support working families through great wages and benefits. We should stand in direct contrast with the voices that say off-shoring of our jobs, cost cutting at any cost and cheap third world labor is the way forward for America. BUNK! We support workers and their families and that should make us all feel proud.

Have a great Sunday my fellow laborers, keep your heads held high.

anon wrote:

<quoted text>
That is not right. The payout from those two formulas, per $1000, would be $750 and $900 respectively. A 750:900 =+20%. The 2@50 had an escalator after 50 yrs of age that made it possible to reach 75%.
The year that Vallejo opted for the 3%@50 there was not a 20% increase in employer contributions let alone a 50% increase, as you imply. The reason for no increase lies in the health of the Dow Jones, at that time.
After the market downturn and bursting real estate bubble the employer contributions were going to increase regardless of 2@50 or 3@50.

smashed him like a bug, again, as long as we are now weaving in gardening tips, lol!

While they feverishly fumble with their calculators, 6 thugs start a fire and walk away whistling a happy tune.

Serve and Protect wrote:

While they feverishly fumble with their calculators, 6 thugs start a fire and walk away whistling a happy tune.

Where the hell are the 300 neighborhood watch groups? They're not even "watching"? What could be easier?

Pensions eat tax Dollars wrote:

<quoted text>
anon,
You go on to say that,“If you overlay the Dow Jones over the funding history of Calpers it makes much more sense to me that the current state of employer contributions lies at the feet of the Wall Street much more than 3%@50.” That just isn’t a true statement IMO.

Overlaying the Dow Jones over the funding history of Calpers is a true statement, IMO. The link provides a bar graph. The red line on the bar graph indicates 100% funded valuation. The line graph represents the DJ Industrial avg. I could not find a graph going beyond 2006 so the information is limited. The first big dip in the CalPERS coincides with the dot com bust (ENRON???). 3%@50 is not the state or the cities biggest problem. Switching to a lower rate for new employees will be helpful in the solution but the answer is the economy not browbeating public safety employees for their pensions.

http://gallery.me.com/nbap1#100462/CalPERS-20...

anon wrote:

<quoted text>
Where the hell are the 300 neighborhood watch groups? They're not even "watching"? What could be easier?

Since VPD cannot even apprehend criminalsmaybe we should depend on neighborhood groups.

http://www.timesheraldonline.com/ci_19943395

go for it. get your fighting back, guardian angels, call all hippies to go catch armed robbers who just brutally beat a victim. well what you waiting for!!!

Sam is enraged wrote:

<quoted text>Since VPD cannot even apprehend criminalsmaybe we should depend on neighborhood groups.
http://www.timesheraldonline.com/ci_19943395

Mobilize the 300+ watch groups! Kickbutt, take names. Go for it ooh enrage one.

anon wrote:

<quoted text>
That is not right. The payout from those two formulas, per $1000, would be $750 and $900 respectively. A 750:900 =+20%. The 2@50 had an escalator after 50 yrs of age that made it possible to reach 75%.
The year that Vallejo opted for the 3%@50 there was not a 20% increase in employer contributions let alone a 50% increase, as you imply. The reason for no increase lies in the health of the Dow Jones, at that time.
After the market downturn and bursting real estate bubble the employer contributions were going to increase regardless of 2@50 or 3@50.

Anon,

While you make some good points others fall flat. I'll have to get back to you hopefully tomorrow afternoon. Heading out for an early Valentines dinner. I appreciate your comments and effort regarding this topic. It's a shame more people are interested.

Pensions eat tax Dollars wrote:

<quoted text>
Anon,
While you make some good points others fall flat. I'll have to get back to you hopefully tomorrow afternoon. Heading out for an early Valentines dinner. I appreciate your comments and effort regarding this topic. It's a shame more people are interested.

it would be a shame if you don't choke and come back here with more of your fabricated attacks on cops and pensioners.

Pensions eat tax Dollars wrote:

<quoted text>
Anon,
While you make some good points others fall flat. I'll have to get back to you hopefully tomorrow afternoon. Heading out for an early Valentines dinner. I appreciate your comments and effort regarding this topic. It's a shame more people are interested.

"others fall flat.". In your opinion

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi...

JD, Are you interested in this?

Pensions eat tax Dollars wrote:

<quoted text>
anon,

The funding history of CalPERS and the Employer Contribution Rates are separate issues when using the 10 year time frame ending June 30, 2010. For now I will only address the funding history. Here is what has happened with both the DOW and CalPERS during the period of July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2010:
- the Dow declined from 10,521 to 10,465, for a decrease of .006 percent.
- CalPERS average funding over the same 10 years fell from 126.6 percent funded to 65.4 percent, or a loss of 48.3 percent.
While the S&P 500 did drop by 23% you can’t blame everything on the crooks that reside on Wall Street. You also can’t “overlay” the CalPERS funding history and the DOW and expect the charts to match up.

It is astonishing to me that you can forensically disect the 3%@50 and when it comes to a 10 (ten) year period in the dow you simply state "the Dow declined from 10,521 to 10,465, for a decrease of .006 percent." and act as if, during that period:

1) the largest bankruptcy in the history of the DJA (Enron) is a non factor

2) The dot com collapse was a simple bump in the road (which covered a 5 year period)

3) The financial crisis that begun in about 2008 and crippled both Europe and the U.S.

were all of a lesser factor in Market Valuation ratio of CalPERS than the 3%@50? IMO that simply is not true. If the 3%@50 would have occurred in 1996, prior to the market topping in 2002, there still would have been a surplus. 75% of the payouts to retirees from PERS comes from the financial markets. Do you disagree with a previous post that now states the PERS Market Valuation ratio is 75%?

"Why did I look at the first paragraph and know the author was a pension taking bureaucrat?"

From the sfgate comments section

LOL!

(t)urd enragement!

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi...

Griss the enraged -t-urd wrote:

"Why did I look at the first paragraph and know the author was a pension taking bureaucrat?"
From the sfgate comments section
LOL!
(t)urd enragement!
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi...

"pension taking bureacrat"?...... So? What was wrong with the article? Sampayan is a pension taking bureacrat and you have faith he will tell the truth and vote for what is right. Is Bob better than the author?