OPINION: One Sided Presentation of City Ballot Measure Left Taxpayers Uninformed
Resident Rick Schiller recommends contract change:
While I value an informed electorate, John Chiang is a strong advocate for Measure A and no one spoke in opposition. If no one is available to speak then the LWV should have had no speakers on this.
A critical issue of the Sidefund Refinance was not discussed last night. According to the BAFP June 3 Report, if the SideFund is refinanced “without a contract change in the mechanics of the cap, the refinancing of the Side Fund would save the employees substantial money but actually cost the City more money (p19). ”
Taxpayers should have been told that by passing the bond refinance, unless Council acts on negotiating down the Pension sharing caps, taxpayers will be voting to pay more for employee pensions.
Editors’ Note: The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.
Hi Rick,
Thanks for your comments and the opportunity to clarify.
The critical issue of the need to lower the cap in the event of refinancing the Side Fund obligation was at the forefront of all the City’s negotiations and has been incorporated in all the MOUs agreed to date.
For your reference, and as an example, I am referencing the following document which can be found in the City’s website.
Per Erick Cheung’s Staff Report dated 11-18-2013 Regarding Memorandum of Understanding for the Piedmont Police Officers Association:
“Retirement Plan – in the event that the City refinances the PERS Side Fund, the City’s employer contribution rate cap of 37% will be decreased based on the “Amortization of
Side Fund” rate in the current “Actuarial Valuation for the Safety Plan of the City of Piedmont.”
Per the attached MOU to Erick’s staff report:
6.1.4 All Employees
In the event that the City refinances the CalPERS Side Fund, the City’s employer contribution rate cap of 37% will be decreased based on the “Amortization of Side
Fund” rate in the current “Actuarial Valuation for the Safety Plan of the City of Piedmont.” (Attachment I)
Attachment I contains a detailed example of effect of lowering the cap with the passage of the Side Fund refinancing.
Thanks,
John
Hi John,
My concern was in part based on comments from another Councilman that were very opaque in this matter. Your clarification and attention to this are much appreciated. Residents can be confident that the refinance, if implemented, will have the desired cost savings.
Thank you,
Rick
Dear Mr. Schiller,
I would gently request that you resist making declarations about how the League should, or should not, handle its Voter Forums prior to getting all of the facts.
Thank you for extending the League this courtesy in the future,
Respectfully and appreciatively,
Hope Salzer
President, League of Women Voters of Piedmont