Archive for the ‘Pension plans’ Category

Padded Pensions Add to New York Fiscal Woes

Thursday, May 27th, 2010
By MARY WILLIAMS WALSH and AMY SCHOENFELD
Published: May 20, 2010
In Yonkers, more than 100 retired police officers and firefighters are collecting pensions greater than their pay when they were working. One of the youngest, Hugo Tassone, retired at 44 with a base pay of about $74,000 a year. His pension is now $101,333 a year.
———————————-
Edward A. Stolzenberg collects $222,143 a year, one of the biggest New York State pensions.
Chris Maynard for The New York Times
WORKING OVERTIME Yonkers has arranged for its police officers to put in overtime as flagmen on Consolidated Edison construction sites. Though a company is paying the bill, Yonkers is reporting the work as city overtime to the New York State pension fund, thereby increasing future payouts.
It’s what the system promised, said Mr. Tassone, now 47, adding that he did nothing wrong by adding lots of overtime to his base pay shortly before retiring. “I don’t understand how the working guy that held up their end of the bargain became the problem,” he said.
Robert Stolarik for The New York Times
—————————————–
Despite a pension investigation by the New York attorney general, an audit concluding that some police officers in the city broke overtime rules to increase their payouts and the mayor’s statements that future pensions should be based on regular pay, not overtime, these practices persist in Yonkers.
The city has even arranged for its police to put in overtime as flagmen on Consolidated Edison construction sites. Though a company is paying the bill, the city is actually reporting the work as city overtime to the New York State pension fund, padding future payouts — an arrangement at odds with the spirit of public employment, if not the law.
The Yonkers experience shows how errors, misunderstandings and wishful thinking are piling hidden new costs onto New York’s public pension system every year, worsening the state’s current fiscal crisis. And the problem is not just in New York. Public pension costs are ballooning everywhere, throwing budgets out of whack and raising the question of whether venerable state pension systems are viable.
In fact, the cost of public pensions has been systemically underestimated nationwide for more than two decades, say some analysts. By these estimates, state and local officials have promised $5 trillion worth of benefits while thinking they were committing taxpayers to roughly half that amount.
The use of public money for outsize retirement pay really stings when budgets don’t balance, teachers are being laid off, furloughs are being planned and everything from poison-control centers to Alzheimer’s day care is being cut, as is happening in New York.
According to pension data collected by The New York Times from the city and state, about 3,700 retired public workers in New York are now getting pensions of more than $100,000 a year, exempt from state and local taxes. The data belie official reports that the average state pension is a modest $18,000, or $38,000 for retired police officers and firefighters. (The average is low, in part, because it includes people who worked in government only part time, or just a few years, as well as surviving spouses getting partial benefits.)
Roughly one of every 250 retired public workers in New York is collecting a six-figure pension, and that group is expected to grow rapidly in coming years, based on the number of highly paid people in the pipeline.
Payouts for Decades
Some will receive the big pensions for decades. Thirteen New York City police officers recently retired at age 40 with pensions above $100,000 a year; nine did so in their 30s. The plan’s public information officer said that the very young retirees had qualified for special disability pensions, which are 50 percent larger than ordinary police pensions. He said several dozen of the highest-paid New York City police retirees had disabilities related to 9/11 and the rest of the disabilities resulted from injuries in the line of duty.
In virtually every case, the officials who granted the rich pensions thought they were offering something affordable, because the cost estimates were too low.
Before Yonkers adopted a richer pension formula for police in 2000, for instance, it was told the maximum cost would be $1.3 million a year. But instead, the yearly cost is now $3.75 million and rising.
David Simpson, a spokesman for the mayor of Yonkers, said pension cost projections were “often lowballs,” so the city could get stuck. “Once you give something, you can’t take it away,” he said.
Police pensions and overtime have been a sore point in Yonkers for many years and were the subject of an exposé in The Journal News in Westchester in 2009. A special audit of police overtime in Yonkers in 2007 found that the police department had failed to enforce its own rules, creating pervasive opportunities for abuse.
Despite all the attention, police are now being paid as flagmen by Con Edison on their days off, Mr. Simpson confirmed, adding that the city was tacking the extra hours onto their pay, which is then reported to the state pension fund.
“The system encourages police to take as much overtime as they can in the last year before retirement. That’s the way the system is structured,” he said. “There’s nothing illegal or unethical about this.”
In fact, a Con Edison spokesman, Robert McGee, said a number of other towns also require the company to use their police officers as flagmen, raising its labor costs.
A spokesman for the New York State comptroller’s office said that the city was in error and pointed to a 1986 decision by the Supreme Court of New York that found that hours worked by police for outside businesses could not be included in their state-paid pensions.
“It has long been established that such overtime from private special duty cannot be included,” said the spokesman, Mark Johnson.
The question of how to pay for generous benefits is proving a challenge to New York and many other states whose revenue has fallen and whose debts have become harder to manage, while public officials try to limit the kind of deep service cuts that often mean political death. Some hard-pressed governments are belatedly coming to the grim conclusion that they have promised workers more than their sagging economies can deliver.
Outside the United States, Greece and Spain have recently reduced government pensions to deal with burdensome debt that has impeded their ability to finance themselves. The new British coalition government has said it will review public pension costs there as well.
Municipalities in this country cannot easily follow suit even as financial problems mount, though, because reducing benefits for their existing employees is considered impossible under the current laws of most states.
The New York State constitution bars public employers from slowing the rate at which workers build up their pensions over the course of their careers. That degree of protection contrasts sharply with the private sector, where companies can generally change the rate at which workers build their benefits at any time. Furthermore, as companies have reduced pensions substantially over the last two decades, states and cities have embellished theirs with sweeteners like inflation adjustments and lower retirement ages that appealed to unions and their members, who vote.
Police and other safety workers are in many cases allowed to retire with full pensions after 20 years. Other workers can often do so after 30 years, even as young as 55, although future hires in New York will have to work to age 62 to get their full benefits, under a law passed in January.
Census data from 2008 show that the typical state or municipal pension is substantially richer than the typical company pension — $15,941 versus $7,904 — for retirees aged 65 and older. By tradition, public employees have said they accepted lower salaries in exchange for better benefits, but the Census data show this has not been true for a number of years. In 2008 the median pay for a worker in the private sector was $39,877, compared with $45,124 for a state or local employee. The data show broad national aggregates that do not try to compare similar occupations.
And, while companies must adhere to uniform federal guidelines about setting aside money to pay pensions, states do not. Some, like New Jersey, have failed to fund their pensions for years and have fallen so far behind they may never catch up again. New York City and New York State have been more diligent about contributing the required amounts each year — but the required amounts now turn out to have been too low, in part because they counted on solid investment returns that have not materialized.
In Yonkers, contributions to the state pension fund keep rising. This year, to save money, the city is proposing to eliminate about 90 police jobs, out of 640. The savings, though, will not even cover the extra cost of the overtime-enriched pensions. Meanwhile, the police say the layoffs will make the situation worse, because shrinking the police force means those who remain must work even more overtime, driving up pension costs even more.
An online, searchable database compiled by The Times contains the names and pensions of about 3,700 public retirees in New York who receive more than $100,000 a year. Information was provided by New York State’s two big pension plans, one for teachers and the other for other state and local workers outside New York City.
Four of New York City’s five big pension funds also provided data. But the city police pension fund listed the six-figure amounts being collected by 536 retired police officers without giving their names. The pension plan for the city’s firefighters has yet to provide the information, as required by public information law.
Even without names, the pension list from the New York City police plan shows a trend toward very youthful retirement, at a time when the city’s contributions to the police pension fund have risen sharply.
New York City has budgeted a contribution of about $2 billion for this year — about 64 percent of the police payroll, one of the highest pension contribution rates in the United States. That amount does not yet include money to make up for the investment losses of 2008, so the rate is almost sure to rise.
A Variety of Occupations
Not all the people getting six-figure pensions are former police and firefighters from cities with liberal overtime and disability policies. Hundreds more worked at hospitals, power utilities, port authorities and other “public benefit corporations” — hybrid entities that compete with the private sector and pay their officials accordingly, but allow them, at the same time, to participate in the state pension fund.
Edward A. Stolzenberg makes a good example. He started out more than three decades ago in the Westchester County government; today, in retirement, he collects $222,143 a year, one of the biggest pensions paid by the New York State pension fund.
In between, he became county health commissioner, running the Westchester Medical Center when it was a big, struggling county hospital. The county made it a public benefit corporation in 1997, with a mandate to grow and compete with the big hospitals in New York City.
In the process Mr. Stolzenberg’s salary shot up. By the time he retired, he was the highest-paid official in Westchester County, he said, with a salary of more than $400,000 a year. That was still less than the rate at a for-profit hospital, he said.
“In a time when the state budget is pretty bad and money is pouring out, people look at pensions and say, ‘This is terrible! Why are people getting this kind of money?’ ” he acknowledged. “It may not be viable. But that’s the way the state structured it.”
He added that his successor at the medical center was making more than $900,000 and accruing a pension.
Companies that find they have overpromised have a way out. They can declare bankruptcy, and if a judge approves, they can send their pension plans to the federal agency that insures corporate pensions. That agency limits its coverage to what is considered a basic pension, currently $54,000 for a 65-year-old retiree, much less for younger people. If Yonkers could send its police plan to the federal guarantor, for instance, Mr. Tassone, at 47, would have his benefit cut from $101,333 to just $15,660.
But state plans don’t have such an insurance program, much less any definition of a basic, guaranteed benefit.
Federal tax law does put a cap on pension payouts, currently $195,000 a year. Congress set this cap, which has risen with inflation, more than 30 years ago to keep employers from turning their pension funds into abusive tax shelters.
But New York State found a way around it. In 1997, lawmakers created a safe-harbor mechanism allowing retirees to collect bigger pensions legally — a second pool of money called the Excess Benefit Fund. Towns all over the state pay the associated costs, even though only a few of them have retirees who qualify. At least 28 recipients in New York get pensions above $195,000 a year. One of the highest is George M. Philip, who gets $261,037 after retiring as chief executive and chief investment officer of the New York State teachers’ pension fund. Since retiring, he has gone back to work as president of the State University of New York at Albany, drawing an additional $280,000 last year.
New York’s attorney general, Andrew M. Cuomo, has said public pensions are getting out of hand, and has begun an investigation of places, like Yonkers, where there are unusual concentrations of six-figure retirees.
But he may well find that most recipients have done nothing illegal. The benefits have been enacted by legislators, signed into law by governors, hailed by comptrollers and adopted by local officials — all of whom were told by actuaries and other financial advisers that the pensions would cost just a fraction of what they are now turning out to cost.
“In very few cases do they know what they’re agreeing to,” said Edmund J. McMahon, director of the Empire Center for New York State Policy, which tracks pension costs. “They almost always obscure the costs, from themselves and from the public.”
Offended by Comments
Mr. Cuomo did not name Mr. Tassone but spoke of a Yonkers officer who had retired at 44 on $101,033 a year. Mr. Tassone said all his neighbors knew it was him, and he bristles at the implication that he got more than he was supposed to. He said he could correctly document all the overtime he worked, and that the practice was approved by the mayor and city council.
The special audit in Yonkers named Mr. Tassone in its sample of retirees with unusual overtime records, but did not accuse him of doing anything wrong. Disciplinary proceedings were brought against only one officer, who is now retired.
Mr. Tassone said the only reason he joined the police force was the promise of a full pension after just 20 years, and it would have been wrong for the state or city to go back on the promise after using it to recruit him.
He said he put up with hardships for 20 years as a police officer, “and now I’m at the end of it and I’ve become a target,” he said. “I broke my hand three times. I broke my left ankle. I blew out my knee. In my last two years alone, I made between 350 and 400 arrests, and a lot of those people weren’t volunteering.”
Because he could retire young, he added, it was important to start out with the largest pension possible. In the coming years, inflation will eat away at his benefit. Public pensions in New York City and State have had a cost-of-living adjustment feature since 2000, but it applies only to the first $18,000.
“I concede, I have a very good pension, but what’s that pension going to be worth when I’m 70 years old?” Mr. Tassone said.
Although limited to the first $18,000, the cost-of-living adjustment was the most expensive pension enhancement enacted in recent memory in New York, according to the Independent Budget Office. The cost has, once again, proved higher than expected.
Yonkers still offers full pensions to police after 20 years, but just in theory. For the moment, the city is too broke to send any new cadets to the police academy, and retirees are not being replaced.
A version of this article appeared in print on May 21, 2010, on page A1 of the New York edition.
  • Share/Bookmark

Pension Bomb Ticks Louder

Tuesday, April 27th, 2010
California’s public funds are assuming unlikely rates of return.
APRIL 27, 2010
The time-bomb that is public-pension obligations keeps ticking louder and louder. Eventually someone will have to notice.
This month, Stanford’s Institute for Economic Policy Research released a study suggesting a more than $500 billion unfunded liability for California’s three biggest pension funds—Calpers, Calstrs and the University of California Retirement System. The shortfall is about six times the size of this year’s California state budget and seven times more than the outstanding voter-approved general obligations bonds.
The pension funds responsible for the time bombs denounced the report. Calstrs CEO Jack Ehnes declared at a board meeting that “most people would give [this study] a letter grade of ‘F’ for quality” but “since it bears the brand of Stanford, it clearly ripples out there quite a bit.” He called its assumptions “faulty,” its research “shoddy” and its conclusions “political.” Calpers chief Joseph Dear wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle that the study is “fundamentally flawed” because it “uses a controversial method that is out of step with governmental accounting standards.”
Those standards bear some scrutiny.
The Stanford study uses what’s called a “risk-free” 4.14% discount rate, which is tied to 10-year Treasury bonds. The Government Accounting Standards Board requires corporate pensions to use a risk-free rate, but it allows public pension funds to discount pension liabilities at their expected rate of return, which the pension funds determine. Calstrs assumes a rate of return of 8%, Calpers 7.75% and the UC fund 7.5%. But the CEO of the global investment management firm BlackRock Inc., Laurence Fink, says Calpers would be lucky to earn 6% on its portfolio. A 5% return is more realistic.
Last year the accounting board proposed that the public pensions play by the same rules as corporate pensions. But unions for the public employees balked because the changed standard would likely require employees and employers to contribute more to the pensions, especially in times when interest rates are low. For now, it appears the public employee unions will prevail with the status quo accounting method.
Using these higher return rates for their pension portfolios, the pension giants calculate a much smaller, but still significant, $55 billion shortfall. Discounting liabilities at these higher rates, however, ignores the probability that actual returns will fall below expected levels and allows pension funds to paper over the magnitude of their problem.
Instead, the Stanford researchers choose to use a risk-free rate to calculate the unfunded liability because financial economics says that the risk of the investment portfolio should match the risk of pension liabilities. But public pensions carry no liability. They’re riskless. That’s because public employees will receive their defined benefit pensions regardless of the market’s performance or the funds’ investment returns. Under California law, public pensions are a vested, contractual right. What this means is that taxpayers are on the hook if the economy falters or the pension portfolios don’t perform as well as expected.
As David Crane, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s adviser notes, this year’s unfunded pension liability is next year’s budget cut—or tax hike. This year $5.5 billion was diverted from other programs such as higher education and parks to cover the shortfall in California’s retiree pension and health-care benefits. The Governor’s office projects that, absent reform, this figure will balloon to over $15 billion in the next 10 years.
What to do? The Stanford study suggests that at the least the state needs to contribute to pensions at a steadier rate and not shortchange the funds when markets are booming. It also recommends shifting investments to more fixed-income assets to reduce risks.
But what the public-pension giants find “political” and “controversial” is the study’s recommendation to move away from a defined benefits system to a 401(k)-style system for new hires. Public employee unions oppose this because defined benefits plans are usually more lavish, and someone else is on the hook to make up shortfalls. Calpers and Calstrs are decrying the Stanford study because it has revealed exactly who is on the hook for all of this unfunded obligation—California’s taxpayers.
Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A16
  • Share/Bookmark

The Government Pay Boom

Friday, March 26th, 2010
The Government Pay Boom
America’s most privileged class are public union workers.
The Wall Street Journal
MARCH 26, 2010
It turns out there really is growing inequality in America. It’s the 45% premium in pay and benefits that government workers receive over the poor saps who create wealth in the private economy.
And the gap is growing. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), from 1998 to 2008 public employee compensation grew by 28.6%, compared with 19.3% for private workers. In the recession year of 2009, with almost no inflation and record budget deficits, more than half the states awarded pay raises to their employees. Even as deficits in state capitals widen and are forcing cuts in services, few politicians are willing to eliminate these pay inequities that enrich the few who wield political power.
Let’s walk through the math. In 2008 almost half of all state and local government expenditures, or an estimated $1.1 trillion, went toward the pay and benefits of public workers. According to the BLS, in 2009 the average state or local public employee received $39.66 in total compensation per hour versus $27.42 for private workers. This means that for every $1 in pay and benefits a private employee earned, a state or local government worker received $1.45.
The BLS study breaks down where that 45% premium comes from. It turns out that public employees earn salaries that are about one-third higher on average than what is provided to private workers per hour worked. But the real windfall for government workers is in benefits. Those are 70% higher than what standard private employers offer, as shown in the nearby table. Government health benefits are twice as generous as what workers employed by private employees earn. By the way, nearly this entire benefits gap is accounted for by unionized public employees. Nonunion public employees are paid roughly what private workers receive.
What if government workers earned the average of what private workers earn? States and localities would save $339 billion a year from their more than $2.1 trillion budgets. These savings are larger than the combined estimated deficits for 2010 and 2011 of every state in America.
In a separate survey, the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis compares the compensation of public versus private workers in each of the 50 states. Perhaps not coincidentally, the pay gap is widest in states that have the biggest budget deficits, such as New Jersey, Nevada and Hawaii. Of the 40 states that have a budget deficit so far this year, 28 would have a balanced budget were it not for the windfall to government workers.
But these current fiscal problems are a picnic compared to the long-term benefit commitments that state and local politicians have made to public retirees. A 2009 study by economists Robert Novy-Marx and Joshua Rauh, published in the Journal of Economic Perspectives, estimated that these government pensions are underfunded by $3.2 trillion, or $27,000 for every American household.
The Orange County Register reports that California has 3,000 retired teachers and school administrators, who stopped working as early as age 55, collecting at least $100,000 a year in pensions for the rest of their lives.
Illinois’s pension obligations are so costly the state had to issue $3.5 billion of bonds merely to meet its mandatory contribution to the worker retirement program, which faces $85 billion, or three years of state tax revenues, in unfunded liabilities. Near-bankrupt New Jersey would have to pay $7 billion a year if it properly accounted for its pension and health benefits.
California, Nevada New Jersey and Ohio all allow double dipping, which lets government workers retire in their 50s and then work another full-time job while collecting retirement checks. In Ohio, police, firefighters and teachers can retire after 30 years on the job, collect a full benefit each year and go back to work full-time doing the same job. This is called retire and rehire.
As the Columbus Dispatch reported last year: “Across the state, Ohio’s State Teachers Retirement System paid out more than $741 million in pension benefits last school year to 15,857 faculty and staff members who were still working for school systems and building up a second retirement plan.” Some teachers can earn nearly $200,000 a year in pensions and salaries.
The union response is that government workers deserve all this because they are more educated and highly skilled. That may account for some of the pay differential but not the blowout benefits. The unions also neglect one of the greatest perks of government employment: job security. Short of shooting up a Post Office, government workers rarely get fired or laid off.
If government workers were underpaid, we’d expect high attrition rates, as they pursued better private opportunities. The reality is the opposite. Cato Institute economist Chris Edwards has analyzed Department of Labor statistics and found that private workers are three times more likely to quit their jobs than are government workers.
So if your state is broke, this is a major reason. Eventually, governors, state legislators and city council members are going to have to decide whether protecting America’s privileged class of government workers is a higher priority than funding such core functions of government as public safety. Something has to give. It’s time to close the biggest pay gap in America.

America’s most privileged class are public union workers.

The Wall Street Journal – link to original

MARCH 26, 2010

It turns out there really is growing inequality in America. It’s the 45% premium in pay and benefits that government workers receive over the poor saps who create wealth in the private economy.

And the gap is growing. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), from 1998 to 2008 public employee compensation grew by 28.6%, compared with 19.3% for private workers. In the recession year of 2009, with almost no inflation and record budget deficits, more than half the states awarded pay raises to their employees. Even as deficits in state capitals widen and are forcing cuts in services, few politicians are willing to eliminate these pay inequities that enrich the few who wield political power.

Let’s walk through the math. In 2008 almost half of all state and local government expenditures, or an estimated $1.1 trillion, went toward the pay and benefits of public workers. According to the BLS, in 2009 the average state or local public employee received $39.66 in total compensation per hour versus $27.42 for private workers. This means that for every $1 in pay and benefits a private employee earned, a state or local government worker received $1.45.

The BLS study breaks down where that 45% premium comes from. It turns out that public employees earn salaries that are about one-third higher on average than what is provided to private workers per hour worked. But the real windfall for government workers is in benefits. Those are 70% higher than what standard private employers offer, as shown in the nearby table. Government health benefits are twice as generous as what workers employed by private employees earn. By the way, nearly this entire benefits gap is accounted for by unionized public employees. Nonunion public employees are paid roughly what private workers receive.

What if government workers earned the average of what private workers earn? States and localities would save $339 billion a year from their more than $2.1 trillion budgets. These savings are larger than the combined estimated deficits for 2010 and 2011 of every state in America.

In a separate survey, the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis compares the compensation of public versus private workers in each of the 50 states. Perhaps not coincidentally, the pay gap is widest in states that have the biggest budget deficits, such as New Jersey, Nevada and Hawaii. Of the 40 states that have a budget deficit so far this year, 28 would have a balanced budget were it not for the windfall to government workers.

But these current fiscal problems are a picnic compared to the long-term benefit commitments that state and local politicians have made to public retirees. A 2009 study by economists Robert Novy-Marx and Joshua Rauh, published in the Journal of Economic Perspectives, estimated that these government pensions are underfunded by $3.2 trillion, or $27,000 for every American household.

The Orange County Register reports that California has 3,000 retired teachers and school administrators, who stopped working as early as age 55, collecting at least $100,000 a year in pensions for the rest of their lives.

Illinois’s pension obligations are so costly the state had to issue $3.5 billion of bonds merely to meet its mandatory contribution to the worker retirement program, which faces $85 billion, or three years of state tax revenues, in unfunded liabilities. Near-bankrupt New Jersey would have to pay $7 billion a year if it properly accounted for its pension and health benefits.

California, Nevada New Jersey and Ohio all allow double dipping, which lets government workers retire in their 50s and then work another full-time job while collecting retirement checks. In Ohio, police, firefighters and teachers can retire after 30 years on the job, collect a full benefit each year and go back to work full-time doing the same job. This is called retire and rehire.

As the Columbus Dispatch reported last year: “Across the state, Ohio’s State Teachers Retirement System paid out more than $741 million in pension benefits last school year to 15,857 faculty and staff members who were still working for school systems and building up a second retirement plan.” Some teachers can earn nearly $200,000 a year in pensions and salaries.

The union response is that government workers deserve all this because they are more educated and highly skilled. That may account for some of the pay differential but not the blowout benefits. The unions also neglect one of the greatest perks of government employment: job security. Short of shooting up a Post Office, government workers rarely get fired or laid off.

If government workers were underpaid, we’d expect high attrition rates, as they pursued better private opportunities. The reality is the opposite. Cato Institute economist Chris Edwards has analyzed Department of Labor statistics and found that private workers are three times more likely to quit their jobs than are government workers.

So if your state is broke, this is a major reason. Eventually, governors, state legislators and city council members are going to have to decide whether protecting America’s privileged class of government workers is a higher priority than funding such core functions of government as public safety. Something has to give. It’s time to close the biggest pay gap in America.

  • Share/Bookmark

Miami unions must share the pain

Thursday, September 10th, 2009

OUR OPINION: Miami’s labor unions must take pay cuts to avoid more layoffs

 

The Miami Herald – Sept 10, 2009 – link to original

 

No one likes a salary freeze, much less a pay cut. But for the past two years thousands of workers and business people have had to accept both as South Florida’s housing bubble burst, the banking crisis hit and unemployment spiked to double digits.

Pay cuts, furloughs, rising employee contributions for healthcare insurance plans, no more employer matches for employee 401(k) plans or other investments — all of those belt-tightening techniques and many more have been employed by private businesses to avoid mammoth layoffs.

Should city of Miami workers — 86 percent are represented by labor unions — be exempt from such sacrifice because contracts were set during flush times? Of course not.

Times have changed. Construction has ground to a halt. Tax revenue for cities and counties throughout Florida has plunged along with property values that are correcting after an unsustainable race to the top that left tens of thousands unable to afford homes now in foreclosure.

Facing a $118 million budget hole this coming fiscal year — about a fifth of the city’s annual operating budget — Miami Mayor Manny Diaz has been forced to make tough choices with little help from the unions that refuse to take even a moderate pay cut.

Union representatives point to old grievances and say they won’t budge because they are owed tiered salary increases, others based on longevity (not performance) and exorbitant pension benefits, period.

Some are trying to confuse the issue by pointing to consultant costs or the baseball stadium project as the culprit when it’s Miami-Dade County that’s carrying the bulk of that burden.

The culprit here, folks, is the economy. In a city that ranks among the poorest in the nation, it’s unconscionable for unions to expect pay raises and pension benefits that in the coming year will saddle the city with a $101 million obligation.

It’s irresponsible to expect the city to raise the property-tax rate, too, when thousands of city residents have had their own pay reduced or are in the unemployment line.

At least the city’s two AFSCME unions and the firefighters union, IAFF, have offered some concessions. For instance, one of the AFSCME unions covering 2,000 city workers has offered to use workers’ scheduled 3-percent raises next year toward paying off their portion of the pension bill. IAFF would accept a 3-percent across-the-board cut but only if pay raises kick in through 2013. That’s a start for negotiations but pay cuts have to be part of the mix.

Mayor Diaz has produced a tough but thoughtful plan that spreads the pain and keeps about $90 million in reserves. Aside from pay cuts and layoffs, he’s suggesting increasing some fees not touched in decades by about 5 percent to raise $10.6 million.

He would cut salaries as much as 15 percent for those who earn $250,000 or above and limit cuts to no more than 6 percent for those earning between $40,000 and $49,999. Those cuts will be part of the City Commission’s budget deliberations on Thursday.

Without police, firefighters and other workers in the city’s unions agreeing to the proposed cuts, the mayor is proposing eliminating 16 percent of the city’s 3,600 workers, including about one-sixth of the police force. If unions agree to the mayor’s plan, nearly 500 jobs would be saved. Not one officer would be laid off.

If unions are serious about saving jobs and pensions for working people, they will do their part, agree to reduced wages and cap the guarantee on their pensions at a lower rate than the unrealistic return of 7.5 percent now required.

This is a short-term fix that’s fair to workers and taxpayers based on today’s tough reality.

  • Share/Bookmark

Ill-fated real estate deal costs Florida $266 million

Sunday, September 6th, 2009


The Florida board that invests public money for current and future retirees bet on a Manhattan real estate deal — and lost every penny of a $250 million investment.

 

BY SYDNEY P. FREEDBERG

ST. PETERSBURG TIMES

 

Miami Herald – link to original

Sept 6, 2009

 

This is the story of how the Florida board that invests public money bet $250 million on a huge Manhattan real estate deal and lost every last penny of it.

On top of the money lost, Florida paid $16 million in fees to real estate developers, bankers and Wall Street money managers who persuaded the state to make the deal.

State elected leaders with potential influence over the pension funds’ investments received campaign contributions from some of those same corporate giants. And state pension managers in the real estate unit got performance bonuses.

The big loser was the State Board of Administration, which invests more than $105 billion for 1 million current and future retirees. On the Manhattan real estate deal, its $266 million is now worth a grand total of $0.00.

How the Florida agency wound up in the ill-fated real estate deal is also a story of lessons learned, as the pension agency’s executive director, Ash Williams, put it when he informed the state’s top officials of the loss.

“We will identify mistakes made, learn our lessons and move on,” Williams said.

Between 2000 and early 2007, four SBA internal reports and a watchdog group identified problems with the real estate investment process — including a lack of risk control.

Nonetheless, the managers shifted assets into higher-risk real estate deals, often by joining private partnerships that used borrowed money.

Investing borrowed money, known as leverage, boosts returns in boom times but amplifies losses in bust times.

In August 2006, at the height of the real estate bubble, a senior acquisitions manager in the SBA’s real estate unit, Steve Spook, received two overtures to join investment firms bidding for adjoining apartment complexes in Manhattan.

The complexes — Peter Cooper Village and Stuyvesant Town — were iconic housing communities, a “city within a city” on 80 prime acres overlooking the East River. Metropolitan Life built the apartments for returning WWII veterans in the 1940s. They became an oasis for teachers, nurses and retirees on small pensions, one of the last refuges for the middle class in Manhattan.

In 2006, an average rent-controlled apartment in Peter Cooper Village went for about $1,340 a month, about 40 percent of the average rent in the surrounding area.

New York’s rent-control rules limited increases to 7.25 percent over two years, with some exceptions. Tenants could be ousted if their primary residences were elsewhere or if they illegally sublet their unit at market rates.

About a quarter of the apartments paid market rates when MetLife put the complex up for sale in August 2006.

The insurer’s whopping asking price — $5 billion — made clear that to make a profit, the buyer would have to convert most remaining rent-stabilized apartments into market-rate units. That October, MetLife announced the winning bid, an eye-popping $5.4 billion by Tishman Speyer Properties and BlackRock Realty.

The buyers put in $225 million of their own money, then passed much of the risk to others.

ENTER FLORIDA

Tishman Speyer had vast real estate holdings in South Florida in the 1980s and early ’90s and was looking to get back into the market. The company contributed $5,000 to the Florida Republican Party in 2002. Two of its executives donated the maximum $500 to the 2006 political campaign of Gov. Charlie Crist.

BlackRock, 49 percent owned by Bank of America/Merrill Lynch, gave $500 to Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink during her 2006 campaign.

Crist and Sink, who serve as pension fund trustees, declined to be interviewed. Their aides said there was no connection between political contributions and the investment in the Peter Cooper Village venture.

BlackRock already managed more than $300 million in Florida pension money. They wanted more business.

On Jan. 9, 2007, five BlackRock executives visited Tallahassee to make their case. Among those they met with were Steve Spook; Doug Bennett, the senior investment officer in the SBA’s real estate unit; and Kevin SigRist, the deputy executive director.

A few weeks later, BlackRock sent the real estate unit a confidential document outlining the strategy for achieving double-digit returns.

The 92-page memo revealed that Tishman Speyer and BlackRock planned to weed out rent-regulated tenants and turn the units into a “market-based environment” in seven years. They would woo young, affluent renters and “position the asset for a value-maximizing sale.”

Ash Williams, who took over as the SBA’s executive director in October 2008, concedes that in hindsight, the projections may have been “overly aggressive.”

But the documents provided to the SBA show agency managers were made aware of the risks all along.

Line by line across 13 pages, the confidential memo lays out the risks — including the possibility that Tishman and BlackRock could fall short of cash to pay off debt.

“Unless net operating income from the property increases materially,” the memo said, “the partnership will not be able to meet its interest payment obligations in which event it would default.”

Spook evaluated the deal for SBA.

• The report stressed the apartment complex’s “excellent physical condition” and “competitive advantages.” But some prospective renters were turned off by the plain brick buildings that looked like a low-income public housing project.

• The report spoke of the “favorable fundamentals” in the Manhattan apartment market. But some experts were predicting a weakening market.

• The report noted the owners’ “extensive experience” in managing rent-regulated apartments. Tishman Speyer had limited experience managing multi-family rental properties. Its expertise was in office towers.

 

Spook’s report also highlighted “issues” with the investment, including possible cash flow problems, contaminated soil beneath the property and concerns about “liquidity,” meaning Florida could have trouble unloading the investment.

`RISKY PROPOSITION’

On March 12, 2007, Spook recommended investing $250 million. Two weeks later, Doug Bennett concurred. In a three-paragraph memo, Bennett acknowledged that the deal could be a “risky proposition” but said Florida would benefit from increasing its New York City exposure.

Kevin SigRist concurred with Bennett, and then-executive director Coleman Stipanovich approved the deal.

The Peter Cooper Village sale fueled a political uproar in New York City over the future of affordable middle class housing.

New York City Council member Dan Garodnick said the high selling price put pressure on the owners.

“They started sending legal notices to many perfectly legitimate longtime tenants claiming they were not using their apartment as their primary residence,” said Garodnick, himself a resident of Peter Cooper Village.

Garodnick helped tenants fight eviction and supported a lawsuit. It contended that the owners had improperly raised rents after getting special tax breaks. The tenants sought $215 million in rent they overpaid.

BlackRock and Tishman Speyer’s confidential memo to Florida’s pension fund had warned that a lawsuit could cripple the deal.

The owners said they thought the tenants’ claims were without merit. But if the residents were to prevail, the memo said, the owners would “suffer an immediate and very substantial loss of revenues and would be unable to carry out a significant part of its plan to convert rent-stabilized units to market rate.”

On June 7, 2007, with the real estate market about to head south, the SBA sank $266,780,948 into the Peter Cooper Village partnership with other investors: $250 million for the investment plus $16,780,948 in fees.

By September 2008, the investment was in deep trouble. BlackRock and Tishman Speyer were having trouble converting the rent-regulated apartments to market-rate units. Expenses were higher than expected, income, lower. The new owners were running low on cash pay their $3 billion mortgage.

On Dec. 4, 2008, at a meeting of the group that advises the Florida pension fund on investments, a member questioned why nobody at the SBA had mentioned the troubled Peter Cooper Village investment.

“I think this should have been on the agenda,” said Jim Dahl, a Jacksonville investor. “Let’s make sure we talk about ‘em so we don’t repeat mistakes. This is a serious, serious problem and we almost went through the meeting without discussing it.”

`PIE-IN-THE-SKY’

Dahl said many investors thought the deal was based on “pie-in-the-sky” assumptions and was “going to have a bad ending.”

The SBA said otherwise.

“This is a long-term investment,” SigRist said in an interview a few weeks later. “The view here is, as a long-term investor, we’re uniquely qualified to hold these investments.” He blamed problems not on inadequate vetting but on the changing financial world.

After a New York court ruled for the tenants, SBA managers exchanged e-mails and acknowledged their investment had been “wiped out.”

On July 28, Doug Bennett authorized the SBA’s director of accounting to write off the entire $266,780,948.

In a memo last month to the three trustees who oversee the SBA, Crist, Sink and Attorney General Bill McCollum, Williams blamed the loss on the recession, slow income growth and leverage.

In an interview, he deflected questions about whether the SBA needed to change policies or add checks and balances to property investment decisions.

“I don’t want to be overly sunny,” Williams said of Peter Cooper Village. But when the economy comes back, the rents could go up and the property could regain its value. “That’s what America is all about.”

Last Tuesday, Sink brought up the real estate deal at a public meeting in Tallahassee. It was the first of the quarterly meetings they ordered after a Times investigation found deceptive and misleading practices by some SBA officials.

Williams told the trustees that investors besides Florida got hurt. He said the SBA staff followed all procedures. “To the extent we had a bad experience,” he said, “that’s unfortunate; we regret it, and we’ve endeavored with all our hearts to make sure we don’t do that again and we understand how it happened.”

VALUES TUMBLED

But overall, Williams said, the agency’s real estate holdings are doing well. Worth $9.7 billion last year, their values tumbled to $7.8 billion for the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2009.

With stocks starting to rebound, Williams emphasized the uptick in the value of the entire pension fund. It hit $138 billion in September 2007, dropped to $83 billion in March 2009 and now is up to $106 billion.

Meantime, the SBA managers are bracing for additional real estate hits, especially in their higher-risk, commercial property holdings, like hotels and office buildings. Tanking values are making it tough for their owners to refinance.

For Doug Bennett’s performance during the peak of the market in 2006-07, on top of his $135,000 annual salary, the SBA last year awarded him an $11,000 bonus.

Spook, who analyzed the Manhattan investment and last year made about $87,000, received a $7,000 bonus.

Two other real-estate employees who had a role in the investment also got bonuses last year for their work in 2006-07.

The SBA said the bonuses were reward for good performance of the entire pension fund.

St. Petersburg Times computer assisted reporting specialist Connie Humburg and researcher Shirl Kennedy contributed to this report.

Similar Stories:

State may invest in Florida real estate

Market upswing aids Fla. pension, hurricane funds

Florida’s state management agency has new oversight provisions

Florida’s pension fund takes hit, but it’s still above water

Landlords find creative ways to fill retail spaces

  • Share/Bookmark

Overtaxed homeowners will hit the road

Wednesday, September 2nd, 2009

Letters to the Editor - link to original

The Miami Herald – Sept 2, 2009

Tell us it was a misprint or perhaps a belated April Fool’s joke. In a recent Home & Design’s How Does Your Home Compare, the real-estate taxes on a home in El Portal that sold for $232,500 were listed at $11,866. Another home in North Miami sold for $595,000 with taxes at $21,264. But a home in Bal Harbour, which sold for $1.3 million, had taxes of $7,668. Bal Harbour gets, by far, superior services and schools than El Portal and North Miami, so why are the taxes so drastically different?

Two of the homes had no previous sales listed, so the argument that the homes were taxed based on previous sale prices cannot apply. In another recent How Does Your Home Compare a home in South Miami that sold for about $300,000 listed taxes of more than $11,000 a year. These taxes are a mortgage payment by themselves, particularly when considering the lousy pay scales in Miami-Dade County.

These exuberant taxes go to districts with low-rated schools, cities with poor services and a county that pays low-ranking administrators the kind of salaries deserving teachers can only dream of.

It is this outrageous and immoral taxation and cost of insurance that are driving the middle class out of South Florida. If this doesn’t change there will soon be long lines of cars on 1-95 heading north for good.

RAYMOND FIGUEROA, Biscayne Park

Similar Stories:

Pinecrest home sells for $3.65 million

MIAMI BEACH: $2,450,000

Renovated ‘63 home sells for $5.5 million

‘Hamptons on Old Cutler’ brings $12.9 million

Zo sells his Coconut Grove house for $6 million

  • Share/Bookmark

CG Commission demands pension contribution, caps OT

Wednesday, September 2nd, 2009

Coral Gables Gazette – link to original article

Posted on Mon, Aug. 31, 2009

 

Salerno: City ‘in financial peril’

At the end of a contentious seven-hour impasse hearing Aug. 31, the Coral Gables city commission made the police an offer: Contribute five percent to the pension or take a five percent pay cut. The proposal, coupled with an overtime cap of 300 hours as opposed to 600 and other assorted cost reductions, will save the city more than $1.5 million, less than half the amount in concessions it sought. If police union members approve the contract covering the period between last October and next month, it will cost police officers on average $160 per week.

The sultry summer day started out with a well-organized protest on the steps of city hall by more than 150 police officers and sympathetic members of the Teamsters, which represents the city’s general employees. Equipped with bull horns, the demonstrators chanted, blew whistles as passing cars honked as a sign of support. Former Mayor Dorothy Thomson, who later spoke on the police’s behalf, said a demonstration of this kind was without precedent. “Never was there a protest while I was in office,” said Thomson, the mother of a police officer. Then things really heated up as the protestor moved inside for the impasse hearing.

In a commission chambers packed with union members that also spilled out into the halls and down the stairwell, the police made their impassioned case that they were being punished for city hall mismanagement.

“We are here today because of other people’s mistakes and mismanagement,” Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) Lodge 7 President John Baublitz. “Being upfront and honest about mismanagement over the years obviously did not do us any good.”

Some of the most blistering and pointed criticism of the administration came from one of the most decorated police officers in the city’s history who spoke on the FOP’s behalf. Jeff Vance who retired in 2001 said, “How are supposed to feel when corruption and scandal have seeped into nearly every part of City Hall and little or no action is taken other than make huge payouts from the city coffers? A perfect example of the Finance Director (Don Nelson), Time after time mistakes are made, overpayments, shortfalls on the budget and computer systems that don’t work,” said Vance. “The Narcotics Unit of the city (police department) handles millions and millions of dollars. It was counted, deposited, put in evidence, wire transfers and seized, all without scandal. Had we made the mistakes the Finance Department does, we would all be in prison.”

The police also asked esteemed civic activist Roxcy Bolton to speak on their behalf. After asking Mayor Don Slesnick to “rethink” his attitude regarding the police, “our first line of defense,” Bolton said she would “…pray for this city commission to do right by the police.”

The city based its case for the imposition of $3.3 million in cost reductions on the arguments that police were already well compensated and that the city was unable to afford anything else. Jim Crosland, the city’s lead labor attorney, disclosed that Coral Gables was “obviously in a precarious financial condition” and the “employee paychecks are now being funded out of what reserves we’ve got.”

Crosland likened the city to a cash-poor family that “…lives in a great house but can’t afford groceries.”

The city’s attorney said Coral Gables police officers were relatively well-compensated in comparison to peers in the region, citing overtime and add-ons as generous pay enhancements.

But it was the city pension attorney and actuary’s sobering reports on the employee retirement fund that troubled elected officials the most. Attorney Jamie Lynn reminded the commission the city’s projected 2009 pension contribution of $24.3 million is approximately 500 percent more than it was in 2000 and called the current level of pension contributions “simply not sustainable.” He added that since 2005, the contribution has represented more than 45 percent of payroll costs.

Lynn silenced the room with his disclosure that the fund’s benefit obligations currently exceed its assets by $168.5 million. In 2001, the deficit was $15.1 million. “Even in the good years, you (the city) had (actuarial) losses in the pension plan,” explained Lynn. “Pension contributions are only going to get worse.”

City Actuary Mike Tierney offered further insight into the pension’s woes. While Tierney said investment losses incurred by the city’s fund in 2008 were just slightly than averages for public pension plans, the assumed rate of return was 7.75 percent. This means in order for the plan to recoup the loss, the actual return will have to exceed 12.44 percent over the next six years. “In the absence of that, we are going to have to pay up,” said Tierney. “And unfortunately…in the experience in the current year just about to end is that there are significantly more losses. Rough guestimates it will another $40 million. So in the last two years we can be looking at a market shortfall over $100 million.”

Tierney explained that the fund also incurred significant losses due to raises larger in actuality than projected. He said that over the last 10 years, raises averaged 37 percent higher than anticipated. In 2008, the pension lost $14 million, more than its market losses, due to raises greater than assumed.

The city actuary told commissioners the fund not met its assumptions for eight of the last ten years so therefore, “…future contributions will be much higher than the 50 percent of payroll you’re currently looking at.” Tierney then added, “Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but unfortunately you’re likely not to have seen anything yet in terms of term of a big contribution number.”

As a percentage of payroll, Tierney reported that Coral Gables’ pension contribution is double that of the state average (23 percent). “We’re not even close,” he said.

Coral Gables City Manager Pat Salerno cited the pension crisis as rationale for his tough stance in his first go-round of Coral Gables labor negotiations.

“As long as the (city’s) pension cost is where it’s at or anywhere near it, the city will not be in a position to give you wage increases,” a poised Salerno told the police officers assembled in the commission chambers. “Eventually the pension costs are going to undermine the financial pinning of this city. We’re there now.”

Salerno then offered a stark assessment of the city’s current financial state. “We’d like to be give wage increases. I would love to be able to offer residents greater services. Professionally I can’t recommend it. Not when the city is in financial peril.”

Salerno faulted the pension for the budget crisis the city now confronts, calling the system “uncontrolled”.

“People are retiring with pensions in some cases 54 percent more than what they were earning when they were here. Some changes have to be made. That’s the situation we’re in.”

Commissioner Chip Wither agreed with manager’s concerns. “The pension has become the big black cloud,” said the elder commissioner. “No one ever anticipated that people would be retiring with 125-140 percent of their salary. My focus today is on pension reform.”

In a rare admission, Mayor Don Slesnick conceded the commission had neglected trying to resolve the retirement fund conundrum far too long.

”Our biggest mistake was not reforming the pension,” said Slesnick. The mayor then recited several examples of waste and mismanagement lobbed against the city during the hearing but said, “If you add up all those things… all that pales, pales in the light of the $25 million (the city contributes annually to the pension).”

  • Share/Bookmark

Unsustainable pension pandering

Monday, August 31st, 2009

OUR OPINION: Cities and police and firefighter unions must renegotiate budget-busting pensions

The Miami Herald – link to original

Sunday, August 30, 2009

We ask our police officers and firefighters to do things we won’t do because of the risks involved.

In exchange we pay them more, make sure they are well compensated for any harm received on the job and allow them to retire at an earlier age than other government workers because of the stress and risks they face. All of this is fair.

What isn’t fair is how much political clout the first responders’ unions wield in local governments and in Tallahassee to the detriment of taxpayers.

That clout gets commissioners elected with low turnouts and generates favorable laws in the Legislature.

But when city commissioners agree to hefty raises and more benefits for police and firefighters the pandering creates problems for taxpayers — as has the Legislature when dumping unfunded mandates on local governments to curry favor with police and firefighters unions.

That’s what happened in 1999 when the Legislature approved and then-Gov. Jeb Bush signed a change into law that limits how cities can use a long-standing state fund that helps pay for local police and firefighter pensions. The fund is financed by an excise tax on property insurance premiums — after all, what do first responders protect, if not property and lives? The Legislature told cities that they could no longer use the fund for basic pension costs — only to tap into it for extended benefits for police and firefighters.

A double whammy

Lawmakers passed the bill to cities and mandated better benefits. This double whammy, plus a series of later legislative-inspired local tax cuts, has put big burdens on cities even without the recession.

Government pensions are funded by contributions from workers, their employers and the return on investments. With the stock market in free fall in the past year, cities find themselves having to pony up far more than usual for pension funds to make up for investment losses.

And while the stock market shows hopeful signs of recovery, South Florida’s housing slump and the recession it fueled are taking big chunks out of municipal budgets.

It’s unsustainable.

The city of Miami will pay an extra $32 million into its pension funds in 2009-10. Consider that since 2001, Miami’s pension bill has risen from $13.9 million to $60.8 million this year. Pension costs are projected to rise to almost $100 million by 2010.

That will consume almost one-fifth of the city’s operating budget — a Herculean challenge for a city that has a high poverty rate and dwindling property tax revenue because of empty condos and foreclosed homes.

Unrealistically generous

Many Broward cities also are scrambling to close pension holes created by unrealistically generous pension promises. For its firefighter fund alone Hollywood will pay an additional $9.2 million next year, more than double what the city contributed five years ago — a portent of future pension demands.

Many cities are planning layoffs and cutting back services to balance budgets. Pension costs are just one contributing factor. But in Miami, which misused firefighter pension funds in the 1980s to pay for other city obligations, pensions based on out-of-control salary bumps threaten to bankrupt the city.

Under the so-called Gates settlement, Miami must use general-revenue money to keep the pension plan whole if stock market returns plummet, as they did last year.

Renegotiate contracts

Eventually the stock market will stabilize, and South Florida pension funds will see higher returns again, providing some relief. But cities will still be on the hook for ever higher police and fire pension costs.

The benefits are now so out of whack that taxpayers simply can’t sustain them.

Yet city officials keep pandering. Hollywood is renegotiating its police, firefighter and general employee contracts as it faces a $22 million budget gap.

Incredibly, commissioners and Mayor Peter Bober agreed to give firefighters a 2.5 percent cost-of-living adjustment each year for the next three years, on top of raises they already received for promotions and long-term service. This salary-and-pensions contract will set the precedent for the others still in negotiation.

The firefighters union made some concessions: New hires’ starting pay will drop 14 percent, and they will be guaranteed a smaller return on their pension investments (now at 8 percent; the state’s is at 6.5 percent) if they enter the Deferred Retirement Option Program, which is another disaster in the making.

To their credit, union officials in several cities have also said they’ll work with their city leaders to find ways to reduce costs.

Clearly, pension-plan concessions are going to have to be part of the solution. Taxpayers are at a breaking point.

Coming Monday: State and local pension fixes

Similar Stories:

Warnings not heeded about pension burden

Miami politics, pensions a tricky balance

Miami faces worst financial crunch in more than a decade

  • Share/Bookmark

How to fix pension mess – part II

Monday, August 31st, 2009

OUR OPINION: Governments should move away from unsustainable pensions to 401(k) plans

The Miami Herald – link to original

Monday, August 31, 2009

Imagine being able to retire long before you turn 50. Among your benefits: a pension plan that gives you almost as much as your current salary each year, cost-of-living adjustments that go far beyond the national average, fewer years to qualify to be fully vested in the pension, overtime pay included in the salary calculations for your pension benefits. Perhaps an extra monthly check once a year — a lucky 13 payment.

Sound surreal?

Not if you are a police officer or firefighter working for a city in Florida.

Businesses convert

While most businesses were turning to 401(k) plans for their workers in the 1980s and 1990s and away from defined benefit plans, local governments counting on union support promised generous pension perks for those plans that guarantee a set amount for life. Adding to the pension costs have been exponential salary increases for these future pensioners.

From Miami to Jacksonville, the pension systems with guaranteed returns are straining resources. Miami’s pension plans — which will need almost $100 million next year to keep to its obligations — have skyrocketed 400 percent in recent years, forcing the city to tap emergency funds to balance the budget. Jacksonville will contribute $110 million to its pension plan next year — $70 million more than six years ago.

Some cities, such as Fort Lauderdale, have been moving toward 401(k) plans for their workers, which is a smart move. A defined benefit plan requires the employer to make up any gap to ensure an employee receives the guaranteed retirement amount — which is why so many cities are scrambling to find the money during this recession when property tax revenue has plummeted.

Overly generous pension benefits have exploded since 1999 when the Legislature passed a law that has saddled cities with increasing pension costs, as explored in The Miami Herald’s Sunday editorial.

The results, as detailed by the Florida League of Cities, are ever-higher taxpayer-backed contributions to the plans — as much as 30 to 50 percent of a first responder’s salary.

Florida state workers’ system is in better shape. It pays about 20 percent of a state employee’s salary toward the retirement system. Counties, which by law can piggyback on the state system, are not as exposed as cities throughout Florida that are having to dip into ever-dwindling revenues to plug holes in pension plans.

Cities do have the option to join the state system, but their debt obligations can make that difficult.

State and local governments should be moving out of pension systems and into a 401(k) or some other plan that would keep the public’s contribution at a steady rate, helping to match employee contributions.

Unaffordable luxury

Looming pension costs for municipal workers throughout South Florida — particularly fire and police pensions that grant extra benefits — are a luxury taxpayers can no longer afford. And loopholes in some contracts — allowing promotions in the year before retirement to become the amount to factor for pension benefits — abuse the public trust.

The Legislature must revisit that skewed 1999 unfunded mandate that put more pension burdens on cities. And cities need to renegotiate contracts to be fair to their workers and taxpayers as they move away from defined-benefit plans to more employee-driven 401(k) contributions.

A research firm hired by Miami Beach to look at how to deal with looming pension costs came up with some steps worth taking:

• Implement a uniform system for awarding pay increases. Some workers get annual “step” increases or mandated salary hikes rather than merit-based raises.

The merit-based system should be adopted for all government workers.

• Peg cost-of-living increases, now often negotiated with unions, to the national consumer price index instead. The average CPI for the Greater Miami-Fort Lauderdale area the past 10 years was 10 percentage points lower than Miami Beach’s cost-of-living adjustments, for example.

Residents need and should value municipal workers, especially our firefighters and police officers. But they pay taxes, too, and surely understand that cities must find a way to balance fair pension plans with other obligations.

Similar Stories:

Unsustainable pension pandering

Hollywood commissioners likely to approve firefighters’ pay contract

Miami Beach grapples with higher pension costs

Warnings not heeded about pension burden

Trim salaries of pork-laden municipalities

  • Share/Bookmark

Jodi Corzine – Connecticut follows Trenton and Albany up the tax charts

Sunday, August 30th, 2009

Wall Street Journal – link to original

August 29, 2009

Connecticut grabs $7,007 in state and local taxes per man, woman and child resident, according to the Tax Foundation, more per capita than every state but New York and New Jersey. That’s hardly the company any state would want to keep these days, but the politicians in Hartford seem intent on following Trenton and Albany off the tax-and-spend cliff.

This week Republican Governor Jodi Rell proposed a $1-billion-plus income tax hike, raising the top tax rate to 6.5% from 5% on individuals with incomes above $500,000 and couples with earnings above $1 million to close an expected two-year $8.5 billion budget deficit. The tax hike would be retroactive to January 1, meaning the government would snatch money that residents have already earned. Perhaps she aspires to the nether-world approval ratings of New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine.

Given the size of its deficit, it’s hard to believe that for 200 years Connecticut balanced its budget without any income tax and became the richest state in the bargain. That changed in 1991 when then-Governor Lowell Weicker pushed the state’s first-ever personal income tax with a promise that the rate would remain flat at 4.5%. But the next time the state couldn’t pay its bills, in 2001, the legislature raised Mr. Weicker’s tax to 5%. In 2007, Ms. Rell wanted more money for the schools, so she proposed raising the income tax again. That plan failed, but now comes her “millionaire surcharge,” which Democrats have eagerly endorsed.

But why? Since the income tax became law, Connecticut has experienced a long, slow exodus of jobs and people. The Yankee Institute notes the astounding fact that since 1992, the year the income tax went into effect, businesses in Connecticut have hired a grand total of zero net new workers. This is while the nation added 22 million jobs and despite the Wall Street boom. As the tax burden has surged, the state lost population to other states (a net 113,000) in every year but one over the last decade.

What the income tax did stimulate was a spending binge and big pay raises for the state’s unionized government workers. The year before the income tax was enacted, Connecticut’s government expenditures per capita ranked right in the middle of all states; now it ranks in the top 10. Per capita real spending has nearly doubled since the income tax was enacted.

Instead of ending periodic budget crises, a Connecticut legislative analysis found in 2006 that “heavy reliance on top income tax filers” has meant that tax collections are “more volatile than most states.” The new income tax bracket on the folks in Greenwich and Westport will make these booms and busts all the more severe.

Ms. Rell has one very good idea, which is to eliminate the state’s inheritance tax. The Nutmeg State’s death tax levy has chased thousands of wealthy seniors to states with no estate tax. The governor also wants to use some of the income tax money to lower the sales tax to 5.5% from 6%. She calls this a “huge, huge boost to the economy,” but cutting taxes on consumption and then raising them on investment and small businesses through the income tax is a strategy to lose jobs.

Earlier this year, George Jepsen, the former Democratic Senate Majority Leader, warned his former colleagues that “Connecticut now enjoys a modest competitive advantage over its immediate neighbors, but ill-conceived taxes and fees will . . . deepen the state’s weakness competing with the South and Southwest.”

We’d suggest that Ms. Rell give Governor Martin O’Malley of Maryland a call. Two years ago he passed a similar income tax hike dressed up as tax “fairness.” Today, a third of the millionaires have vanished from the tax rolls—and the state is still in deficit.

To revive growth and boost family incomes in Connecticut, Ms. Rell should be working to repeal the income tax, not expand it. It’s a failed experiment that has mostly benefited the likes of Florida and Texas. Connecticut’s saving economic grace in recent years has been that its political class is slightly less destructive than its Northeast neighbors, and that’s not an advantage it can afford to give up.

  • Share/Bookmark