HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04012003 - D4 DA
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Date: April 1,2003 PUBLIC COMMENT
The following persons presented testimony:
Ralph A. Hernandez, 2718 Barcelona Circle, Antioch, concerning the
County Safety Employees' recently negotiated enhancement Retirement Plan
benefits;
Douglas Johnson, 126 Williamson Court, Martinez, regarding Contra
Costa County being declared a Yellow Ribbon County,
Rollie Katz, P.O. Box 222, Martinez, regarding public health
officials identifying employees exposed to Severe Acute Respiratory
Syndrome(SARS);
THIS IS A MATTER FOR RECORD PURPOSES ONLY
NO ACTION WAS TAKEN
COMMENTARY: 3/11/03
Let's"clear the air" concerning the County Safety Employees' recently negotiated enhanced Retirement Plan
benefits, which we employees are paying a lot for, Much misinformation has been thrown about by some of the
newspaper's Reporters and others.
The Retirement Association's Board of Trustees controls the employees' Retirement funds,not the employee
Unions, County Board of Supervisors, nor the County Administrator. The Trustees are State Constitutionally
responsible for investing and administering the assets of the public pension Retirement System, including whatever
retirement Plan is negotiated between the employee groups and the County (employer).
Our previous Safety Employees Retirement Plan is commonly referred to as the"2%at 50" Plan. It automatically
increased yearly to a maximum of 2.62%at 55. Once the employee contemplating retirement reached 50 years of
age they estimated their potential retirement benefit by multiplying the percent(%) by the number of years of
applicable service,by their highest compensation within a one year period, to get the estimated amount of monthly
retirement benefit to be received by the employee. Therefore an employee reaching 50 years of age, having worked
25 years,and earned(lets say)a single year high of$4,000 average a month, would be eligible for $2,000 a month
retirement benefits(2%X 25yrs. X$4,000). A 55 year old employee, having the same years of employment and
monthly earnings,would instead be eligible for a monthly retirement of$2,620 (2.62%X 25 years X $4,000). The
differences are obvious. The former"2% at 50" Retirement Plan was primarily age-benefit-based.
Under the recently negotiated"3%at 50"Plan these employees would be eligible for a monthly retirement benefit
of$3,000(3%X 25 years X$4,000). Depending upon how old the employee was then,at the time of contemplated
retirement,the true increased benefit difference now can be between 50% (the 50 year old) and about 13% (the 55
year old). The current"3% at 50" Retirement Plan is plainly years-of-service benefit-based.
In the 32 plus years of fall time Law Enforcement service that I've put in I've always paid a portion of my gross
wages towards my retirement plans. It's cost me, and many of my co-workers, in the hundreds of dollars each and
,e`fi��.�,�y:n..di ,r{✓--e`5.soJ,� E.:.vim.-.vr s �-t.'-l"
every month. It's reduced our purchasing power, investments and savings ability! There are and have been many
Cities and agencies that haven't made the employees pay anything towards their retirement plans, at the City's and
agency's additional expense. Those employees have had a very sweet deal and continue to be on the publicly-paid-
for "gravy train."
I believe that it's been irresponsible and wholly unfair for the newspaper's Reporters and Columnists to have
obviously only presented a very slanted and biased story, ignoring the true comparative picture. I believe that the
Grand Jury also hasn't been given all of the facts. Any investigation they contemplate should include all of the
cities' and agencies' retirement plans, employee contributions differences, etc., within the County. Antioch,
BARTD, Brentwood, Concord, Contra Costa County(including their contract cities), CC Fire District, EBRPD, El
Cerrito,Pittsburg, Pleasant Hill, and Walnut Creep all have the"3% at 50" retirement plans.
The County has always had the employees pay a portion of their wages towards their retirement plan(s), and the
employees are now paying even more for their"3%at 50" enhanced Retirement Plan. The employees currently pay
upwards of almost$1,000 a month of their gross wages, with it increasing as of July and then October by an
additional combined $400 to $500 a month. And then again an additional $150 to $200+a month as of October
2004. By that time the average County Safety employee will be paying about 20%(1/5th)of their wages just towards
their retirement plan, averaging between $1,500 to $2,000 each and every month.
So, how many of you pay such high amounts into your retirement plans?I would like to see the comparisons
between what the County employee pays versus what the aforementioned cities' and agencies' employees pay, and
what the newspaper's Reporters and Columnists pay towards their retirement plans. Let me tell you now. The
County employees pay far more than any of them! The newspapers and Grand Jury members are obviously barking
up the wrong tree(the County and its employees).
The future of County employment and of its employees is bleak, unless the heavy financial burden is lifted off
of the shoulders of its employees. Why would anyone want to come or continue to work for the County when they
can go work elsewhere, and have most, if not all, of their retirement paid for by the city or agency?Even a child can
tally up the extreme cost paid by the County workers versus others, between$18,000 to $24,000 a year. I envision
many of the County employees soon seeking similar employment elsewhere, where they can still get the same
retirement plan and benefits, but at a lesser or no cost to them. If I had many more employment years to do that is
what I'd definitely do!
t
Ralph A. Hernandez
2718 Barcelona Cr., Antioch, Ca., 94509
(925) 757-8943
PS to the newspaper's staff-In my absence and/or unavailability, my wife,Norma.A. Hernandez, can verify the
authenticity of my submitted letter.
COMPARISON STUDY OF EMPLOYER'S RETIREMENT CONTRIBUTIONS
(VERSUS EMPLOYEE'S CONTRIBUTIONS)
Agency Phone# Employe
e Pays EmIlo, eY r Pays Rankings By Employee's Cost
Contra Costa 935-2525 Nothing at all All of it #1 (First place)
Times Newspaper (vested at 5 years of work, &have a 50/50 shared cost for their separate 401K Plan)
Antioch 779-7020 Nothing at all All of it #2 shared place
BARTD (510) 464-6736 Nothing at all All of it #2 shared place
Concord 671-3308 Nothing at all All of it 42 shared place
EBRPD (510) 635-0135 Nothing at all All of it #2 shared place
Pittsburg 252-4878 Nothing at all All of it #2 shared place
Pleasant Hill 671-5220 Nothing at all All of it #2 shared place
Walnut Creek 943-5815 Nothing at all All of it #2 shared place
Brentwood 516-5191/5400 1%currently, the balance #3
Nothing, as of 7/03 All of it
El Cerrito (510)215-4315 2.9% of gross the balance #4
C.C.County 335-1701 est. 20% of gross the balance #Last (shared with C.C. Fire Dist.)
(by 10/04)
C.C. Fire Dist. 930-5500 est. 20% of gross the balance #Last(shared with C.C.C.)
(by 10/04)
, `SIF-�
COMPARISON STUDY OF EMPLOYEE'S RETIREMENT CONTRIBUTIONS
(VERSUS EMPLOYER'S CONTRIBUTIONS )
Agency Phone# Employee Pays Employer Pays Rankings M1210yee's Cost
C.C.County 335-1701 est. 20%of gross the balance #1 (shared with C.C. Fire Dist.)
(by 10/04)
C.C. Fire Dist. 930-5500 est. 20%of gross the balance #1 (shared with C.C.C.)
(by 10/04)
El Cerrito (510)215-4315 2.9%of gross the balance #2
Brentwood 516-5191/5400 1% currently, the balance #3
Nothing, as of 7/03 All of it
Antioch 779-7020 Nothing at all All of it Shared- Last Place
BARTD (510) 464-6736 Nothing at all All of it Shared- Last Place
Concord 671-3308 Nothing at all All of it Shared- Last Place
EBRPD (510)635-0135 Nothing at all All of it Shared- Last Place
Pittsburg 252-4878 Nothing at all All of it Shared- Last Place
Pleasant Hill 671-5220 Nothing at all All of it Shared- Last Place
Walnut Creek 943-5815 Nothing at all All of it Shared- Last Place
Contra Costa 935-2525 Nothing at all All of it Shared - Last Place
Times Newspaper(vested at 5 years of work, & have a 50/50 shared cost for their separate 401 K Plan)
EXh'1l7-_ 0
IN TEE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
or
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CAIXrORNIA
In the Matter of Declaring )
Contra Costa County a ) RESOLUTION NO. 91161
Yellow Ribbon County }
}
Whereas this nation as of January 16, 1991 is at war, and we
acknowledge all those who are serving our great Country and protecting those
who are not blessed with the freedom we know; and
Whereas the proud people of Contra Costa County and all its cities
wish to express their support of our brave and dedicated servicemen and women
and their families during these hostilities by displaying and flying the
American Flag; and
Whereas the United States Cavalry in the days of George Armstrong
Custer wore yellow hankies and uniforms trimmed in yellow; and
Whereas there have been reports that the women of the 19th Century
tied a yellow stocking around their arms or in their hair when men went to
war, an idea that came from the days of chivalry; and
Whereas the people of this County of Contra Costa are also encour-
aged to display yellow ribbons in support of our troops; and
Whereas permission has been granted by the Contra Costa County
Board of Supervisors to display ribbons and the American Flag at all County
buildings and County property; and
Whereas yellow ribbons shall also be allowed on telephone, light
and traffic poles (not to obstruct any traffic sign) and shall not be removed
until this war is over and our troops are home safely; and
Whereas the people of this County of Contra Costa have vowed never
to forget our brave servicemen and women during these hostilities;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Contra
Costa County that Contra Costa County is DECLARED a Yellow Ribbon County.
PASSED on January 22, 1991 by unanimous vote of the Board members
present.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of
an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date
aforesaid.
Witness my hand and the Seal of the
Board of Supervisors affixed this
22nd day of January, 1991.
PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors and County Administrator
By: A✓'Deputy Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. 91161