Marinwood Safety Meeting by Speakers November 7, 2018

L.A. Firefighter Earned $300K in Overtime by Working More Hours Than Actually Exist

irefighter Earned $300K in Overtime by Working More Hours Than Actually Exist

Donn Thompson was paid for more than 9,200 hours of work last year. But there are only 8,760 hours in a year.

Eric Boehm|May. 21, 2018 1:45 pm


Tim Berger / Glendale News/Los Angeles Times / Polaris/NewscomLos Angeles firefighter Donn Thompson had a busy year in 2017. If his pay stubs are to be believed, he literally never stopped working.

Data obtained by Transparent California, a project of the Nevada Policy Research Institute, show that Thompson pulled down $300,000 in overtime pay during 2017, on top of his $92,000 salary. Over the past four years, Thompson has earned more than $1 million in overtime, according to Transparent California's database. Thompson's ability to work so many hours "boggles the mind," says Robert Fellner, director of research at the institute.

To earn that much in overtime pay, Thompson would have had to work more hours than actually exist in a single year. Either the highly paid firefighter found a way to stretch the space-time continuum or something fishy is going on.

Here's how the math breaks down. Thompson, like all firefighters in Los Angeles, works 2,912 hours every year. With a base salary of $92,000, that comes to an hourly rate of $31.60. That means Thompson would earn overtime pay at a rate of $47.40 per hour—that's one and a half times the base rate. But earning $302,000 at a rate of $47.40 per hour would require working more than 6,370 hours. Add that to the 2,912 hours he worked as a salaried employee, and you get more than 9,280 hours worked, despite the fact that there are only 8,760 hours in a year.

Thompson is probably taking advantage of contract provisions that boost overtime pay above the typical rate, says Fellner, though it's unclear for now how that affects the calculations. (Transparent California is awaiting more payroll datafrom the fire department.)

Cashing in on the Los Angeles Fire Department's generous overtime rules is nothing new for Thompson, who might very well be the highest paid firefighter in American history. A 1996 Los Angeles Times story highlighted Thompson as a prime example of what the paper called "paycheck generosity" at the department. From 1993 through 1995, the Timesfound, Thompson made $219,649 in overtime pay. At the time, the department was spending more than $58 million annually on overtime, an amount the paper called "budget-wrenching"; it far surpassed what fire departments in other big cities were paying. The Fire Department of New York, for example, at the time paid about a third as much in overtime.

In 2009, when the Los Angeles Daily News reported that the L.A. fire department's overtime budget had grown by more than 60 percent in a decade, Thompson was once again riding high. He had earned "$173,335 in overtime in addition to his nearly $100,000 base salary while working at Fire Station 19 on Sunset Boulevard in Brentwood," the paper reported, citing 2008 figures.

In 2014, when the San Diego Union-Tribune featured Thompson in a story about runaway overtime costs at California fire departments, he told the paper that he "basically lived at the station" and didn't go home very often.

"The first thing [people] think of is firefighters sitting around at the station, but they're not just handing out free money over here," Thompson said. "I'm working hard."

The Los Angeles Times found quite the opposite when it investigated overtime. In the 1996 article, the Times said most overtime hours are not connected to "fires or other emergencies. Instead, most of it goes for replacing those who are out because of vacations, holidays, injuries, training, illnesses or personal leaves."

While Thompson's payouts are certainly eye-popping, he's hardly the only firefighter in L.A. reaping huge taxpayer-funded earnings. During 2017, the Los Angeles Fire Department had 512 employees who cashed in with at least $100,000 in overtime pay, according to Transparent California. That's a tenfold increase over the 51 employees who got six-figure overtime pay as recently as 2012. Thompson was one of 26 employees to get at least $200,000 in overtime pay last year, when the department reported spending $198 million on overtime pay—a 74 percent increase since 2012.

Perhaps the only silver lining for the taxpayers is the fact that overtime pay can no longer be factored into pension benefits, a consequence of a 2012 pension reform bill signed by Gov. Jerry Brown. It is perhaps not surprising that a dramatic increase in overtime payouts began the same year Brown signed that bill.

Marinwood FD Considers Fire Chief service with San Rafael FD while San Rafael FD screws Marinwood taxpayers.

The Marinwood Community Services District is awaiting a proposal from the San Rafael Fire Department for a shared services agreement. Marinwood fire Chief Tom Roach is expected to retire after 15 years as chief.
“The shared services is for management and chief officers,” Roach said. “San Rafael would take over,” but it wouldn’t be a full merger, Roach said.
There are 10 firefighters in the department, which has a $2.8 million annual budget. See article in the Marin IJ HERE

Editor's Note: This is a very light proposal for services and still San Rafael has been dragging their heels for months. Marinwood taxpayers are getting ripped off from San Rafael. Under the current shared services agreement our Marinwood Firefighters spend 2/3 of their time responding to San Rafael emergency calls. San Rafael pays us nothing for that. The Marinwood paramedic tax Measure E instituted in 2011 was supposed to give us a paramedic from San Rafael Fire Department to be stationed in Marinwood.  Due to labor issues this has never happened and we have been paying the tax for SEVEN YEARS!   Everyone agrees that something must be done but the Marinwood CSD will not address the issue on behalf of its taxpayers. In private business this is a fraudulent contract and could put people behind bars. Why does this continue?

Marinwood CSD simply is not up to the task of labor negotiations on behalf of its residents. We should outsource our emergency services like we do with our police protection. Santa Venetia pays San Rafael $1.7 million dollars for fire protection that Marinwood pays $2.8 million dollars for. We could save major $$$ by contracting with San Rafael. But San Rafael has a great deal going now. Why should they want to merge when the Marinwood CSD taxpayers have been so generous (stupid)?

Marinwood CSD would be better off and the firefighters would have better equipment and career opportunities if we merged with a larger agency. It is a win-win-win.

Marinwood Fire Department can learn from the Herald Fire Protection District

Pension woes cloud small fire district

BY ED MENDEL POSTED 08.28.2017

A worried Herald Fire Protection District board discussed the possibility last week that the fee for leaving CalPERS may be around $400,000, an amount some members fear could push the small district in southern Sacramento County into bankruptcy.

Earlier this month, Transparent California reported that the suburban Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District has 216 retirees receiving annual pensions of $100,000 or more, and a dozen of those are $200,000 or more.

The Herald district, which approved a $655,000 budget last week, filed to leave CalPERS in January 2016 because pension costs were becoming unaffordable.

Sacramento Metropolitan was formed from 16 smaller fire districts, several in rural areas similar to Herald. How the large consolidated district and tiny Herald evolved in such drastically different ways might make a good case study of local government efficiency.

Now Sacramento Metropolitan provides some of the most generous pensions in the state. The Herald district, which approved a $655,000 budget last week, filed to leave CalPERS in January 2016 because pension costs were becoming unaffordable.

On the Transparent California list of the 25 local governments with the most annual pensions of $100,000 or more, Sacramento Metropolitan ranks above the city of Sacramento, which is 13th with 167 pensions. The highest is former police chief Rick Braziel at $198,412.

Sacramento Metropolitan also ranks above two large regional districts. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California is 15th with 159 pensions of $100,000 or more, a half dozen above $200,000. The highest is Gilbert Ivey, $298,233.

The San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District is 24th with 133 retirees receiving pensions of $100,000 or more. Three of the pensions are above $200,000, topped by Gary Gee, $218,666.

“We do have a higher percentage of employees who reach that level.” — Chris Vestal

Sacramento Metropolitan says it’s the seventh largest fire agency in the state. The only other fire district on the top 25 list, Alameda County, ranked 25th with 126 pensions of $100,000 or more, led by Daniel Berfield, $172,475.

The Alameda County Fire District has a smaller staff than Sacramento Metropolitan, 450 compared to 700. But it covers a higher-cost area, particularly for housing, that includes San Leandro, Newark, Union City, Emeryville, Dublin and the unincorporated area of the county.

Sacramento Metropolitan covers eastern and northern Sacramento County and a tiny piece of Placer County. Its 358 square-mile service area has a population of 738,000 and includes Rio Linda, Citrus Heights, Orangevale, Fair Oaks, Carmichael, and Rancho Cordova.

So, why does Sacramento Metropolitan have what seems to be an unusually large number of retirees with high pensions: 216 receiving $100,000 or more a year, and the top dozen receiving $200,000 or more?

A spokesman said Sacramento Metropolitan firefighters tend to work a full career of three decades. “We do have a higher percentage of employees who reach that level,” Capt. Chris Vestal said in a brief interview, cut short.

Five years ago, a former Sacramento Metropolitan Fire chief, Kurt Henke, was among the local officials who successfully urged the CalPERS board to phase in a lower investment earnings forecast over two years, softening the impact of an employer rate increase.

Henke told  the CalPERS board that Sacramento Metropolitan had closed six of 42 fire stations, cut the budget from $159 million to $132 million, and obtained $28 million in labor concessions.

He said the proposed rate increase would cost his agency $2 million to $2.5 million, adding to an expected loss of $6 million in revenue as Sacramento area property values continue to drop.

“You have a lot of local agencies that are on the verge of economic hardship and/or bankruptcy, and to implement this in one fell swoop would push a lot of those entities over the edge,” Henke said.

Top Sacramento Metropolitan pensions (Transparent California)

Herald has told the California Public Employees Retirement System that a termination fee of around $400,000 might push the small fire district into bankruptcy, said Lindsey Liebig, the Herald board chairwoman.

After filing to leave CalPERS last year, Herald waited the mandatory year before completing the exit in January. Liebig said the district was told to expect a final termination fee in four to six weeks.

But Herald is still waiting for the termination fee that could determine its future. The district has retained an attorney and is contesting some of the seven or eight former employees CalPERS thinks are eligible for a pension.

A CalPERS spokeswoman, Amy Morgan, said via email: “The District found some discrepancies for the termination valuation data (i.e., contesting employment classifications, compensation, and dates of employment) that CalPERS is validating in order to issue an accurate final termination valuation.”

Employers and employees no longer contribute to a terminated pension plan.

Presumably, CalPERS is proceeding with caution because it recently cut pensions for the first time when termination fees were not paid by a tiny Sierra town, Loyalton, and a disbanded job-training agency, LA Works.

Herald could be the third round of CalPERS pension cuts, compounded this time by putting a small fire district out of business. But letting Herald off the hook could set a precedent at a time when local governments are struggling with rising pension costs.

The termination fee, due in a lump sum, is controversial. Employers and employees no longer contribute to a terminated pension plan. So CalPERS says the fee must be large enough to invest and cover all of the future costs of pensions.

If the termination fee is not paid, CalPERS cuts the pensions to the amount covered by the employer’s pension fund. The Loyalton pensions were cut by about 60 percent, currently being replaced by city payments, and LA Works pensions were cut by 63 percent, not being replaced.

In 2011 CalPERS sharply increased termination fees. The investment earnings forecast used to calculate the fee was dropped from the regular forecast, now 7 percent, to a risk-free bond rate, now 2 to 3 percent in the termination fee estimates in annual plan valuations.

Several cities, notably Villa Park, considered exiting CalPERS but balked at the high termination fee. The judge in the Stockton bankruptcy called the fee a “poison pill.” Others refer to the old “Hotel California” pop song: You can check in, but you can’t check out.

Herald now has only one full-time employee, an administrative assistant, said Liebig. About 30 volunteer firefighters are paid by shift and per call.

With new leadership, the Herald district is still responding to a county grand jury report in 2014. “A Firestorm Raging in Herald” said the close-knit community had been torn apart by two years of criticism of the district.

The grand jury said a bank account was not revealed to the county finance department or auditors. Firefighters were not given due process. Staff did not respond to a subpoena for financial information. And the board did not candidly respond to the public at meetings.

Last week, Liebig said a grand jury followup in June criticized the district for not budgeting money for the CalPERS termination fee. She said that would be difficult when the fee amount is uncertain and the district is continuing to spend to make more improvements.

Herald now has only one full-time employee, an administrative assistant, said Liebig. About 30 volunteer firefighters are paid by shift and per call, providing 24-hour staffing with one to three firefighters depending on the shift.

Previously, she said, three full-time firefighters only provided staffing Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Last month the district, which has a 96 square mile service area, responded to 45 calls.

In discussions with CalPERS, Liebig said, estimates of the CalPERS termination fee have ranged from zero to about $400,000. She said the district is in “limbo” while waiting for a fee that may determine whether it continues to operate, closes, or merges with another district.

“I wish they would give us some sort of news, whether it’s good, bad or ugly,” Liebig said.
—
Ed’s Note: Reporter Ed Mendel covered the Capitol in Sacramento for nearly three decades, most recently for the San Diego Union-Tribune. More stories are atCalpensions.com.

A Heated Exchange between ME and Chief Tom Roach concerning the Marin IJ Article on the Kitchen

Stephen Nestel	Feb 19 (4 days ago)
to Eric, Tom, Bill, IRVING, Izabela, Leah, Jeff, bcc: Linda, bcc: Bill

http://www.marinij.com/government-and-politics/20180219/marinwood-firefighters-at-boiling-point-over-kitchen-disrepair

I could not believe this article in the Marin IJ which will definitely be read by lawsuit happy lawyers intent on extracting fees from the CSD.

As you are well aware, the contracting process has been difficult and the latest iteration only INCREASES liability because it attempts to straddle government contracting regulations without fully complying. In addition, the world has been notified by Leah's quote the district is now prepared to spend “whatever it costs to get the job done.” .  It is a very reckless statement that surely will cost the district.  She should immediately qualify this to the public or step down from the board.

The board should IMMEDIATELY withdraw any construction agreements above $25,000 which will place the project under government contracting laws.  

Better to have a $25,000 kitchen than a $87,000 kitchen and a $200,000 lawsuit.

Let's use some commonsense.  The chief is about to retire, we need to concentrate on a mergers with SRFD or another agency before he leaves us.  This distraction will only take time and money away from far more pressing issues.

============

troach <troach@marinwood.org>	Feb 20 (3 days ago)
to me, edreikosen, dipietroshea, ilschwartz, izabela.perry, leahegreen, jnaylor567

There is no current bid for $25,000.  That company is no longer interested in working with the District.  And as far as I know there is no $200,000 lawsuit nor do I know of anyone threatening such a lawsuit.  I am working with a licensed registered contractor to come up with a reasonable bid to complete the project.  Stephen, your half truths and threats are doing very little to help the District complete business and will only further delay the project.  

Tom Roach

====================

Stephen Nestel	Feb 20 (3 days ago)
to Tom, Eric, Bill, IRVING, Izabela, Leah, Jeff, bcc: Linda, bcc: Bill, bcc: Brad, bcc: gklien

The district is wide open for a lawsuit given the administration of this project.  Of course, $200,000 lawsuit is simply just a guess what it could cost with an aggressive lawyer determined to milk the district.  The discussions are already in the public record where collusion, ignoring government contracting law and willingness to overpay for work is there for the world to see.  

You, Chief Roach are particularly vulnerable.  I am merely informing you to stop before walking into the alligator swamp.  Again, I suffer insults from you instead a measured evaluation of the facts.   Several contractors, I know will be willing to do it under the $25k limit.  Someone suggested that Granite Expo in Emeryville could do it under $20k.  Did you even explore this option?   The whole project, from the "emergency mold" until today, seem to be forced upon the district.  A serviceable kitchen could be had for FREE but the insistence on a luxury kitchen with favored contractors is the only one deemed acceptable by the Marinwood CSD.

If you ignore the facts, then regrettably this issue could become much, much larger.

Ms. Green can proclaim, "We will pay whatever it takes" but the district must back it up with our taxes.  Wouldn't it be better to secure the retirements of employees first?

Like many taxpayers in the district,  I don't have a trust fund or a six figure pension to look forward to.  Instead,  I see a deep sea of red ink from feckless spending. And spending means taxes.  

For the sake of the district, take positive action.  Go to Granite Expo today and get a quote.  If it is under $25k,  pull the trigger.  You'll show the public, that you are a good steward of taxpayer's money,  a leader for the department and will be remembered fondly in your retirement. 

Do the right thing.

Marinwood Fire Department: How To: $500 DIY Kitchen Remodel while waiting for Martha Stewart

The Marinwood Fire Department INSISTS they have a new "Martha Stewart Kitchen" makeover.  The original estimate cost was $5000 but rose to $100,000 quickly as demands for luxury appliances ($5000 oven,  $4500 Viking Range, Custom stone countertops) and Contractor's with ties to the Marinwood CSD and the Fire Service "competed for bids".   The Marinwood CSD altered the contract to "reduce costs" but still the bid was way out of budget range. One very generous resident offered to DONATE THE ENTIRE COST of the Kitchen up to $25,000.  The Marinwood CSD refused the gift.  Now the CSD is insisting on using special "government contractors" at 4 times the original bid cost when a VERY SERVICABLE kitchen can be done quickly for well under $25,000. 

It is absurd.

So, as a public service, I am posting this video for Marinwood CSD.  This is how REAL PEOPLE innovate when budgets are tight. It may contain a few ideas they can use to freshen up the kitchen while awaiting their "Martha Stewart Kitchen" to arrive.

Marinwood CSD October 2017 Full Meeting

Marinwood Fire Department restructuring,  Luxury Kitchen makeover of Fire Department, New rules that prohibit public input and  discussion of district matters.  Accounting issues ignored. Millers plea for Landslide  mediation stonewalled.  Marinwood CSD member, Jeff Naylor wants county council to prohibit public from talking about pending housing developments and its effects on the Marinwood CSD budget.  More Brown act violations and evasion and hostility.

Deadly California Wildfires Spark Needed Debate About Current Spending

And it's already contentious.

Steven Greenhut | October 20, 2017

• EMAIL
 
• SHARE 
 
• PRINT

In the days before Facebook and other social media, it was a matter of course to wait a few days after tragedies strike before making political and policy points about the latest event. We always need to show compassion for the suffering—and wait until more of the facts roll in before getting up on that soapbox.

At the OC Register, we used to refer to the late editorial writer Alan Bock as "Reverend Bock" because he was so good at offering condolences rather than lectures. But, ultimately, it's the role of opinion writers to provide constructive policy advice after destructive events. We see this following the Las Vegas massacre this month, where gun availability became an understandable topic, and after recent hurricanes, where relief efforts received scrutiny.

Now, it's time to think about wildfires. It's hard not to think about them in northern and Southern California. My house is 80 miles from Napa Valley, yet the air is thick with smoke. Thousands of people have been evacuated from their homes. At least 41 people have died and hundreds are missing as 16 fires engulf more than 160,000 acres in a heavily urbanized area. More than 3,500 homes and businesses have been destroyed, including wineries.

This is terribly sad. Anything one says about other people's misery comes across as inadequate or trite, but we should have heavy hearts for what our fellow Californians are going through. Wildfires are, of course, a regular occurrence. The fields and woods typically are dry this time of year. It gets windy. Power lines fall. Wildfires spread like, well, wildfire.

What should we learn for next time?

The debate already is contentious. "Climate change is lengthening the fire season in the West," the San Jose Mercury News argued. "Congress and Western state legislatures should be amping up prevention—just as we strengthen dams to help prevent flooding." The newspaper also pointed to (and downplayed) conservative arguments in favor of more logging, which could "reduce the severity of fires."

Those are important discussions, but involve broad topics of climate policy, land-use regulations and federal budgetary priorities. I'm more focused on the concerns on the ground. In particular, there's been talk about the state having too few firefighters and insufficient resources. For instance, news reports suggest that instead of working 24-hours on and then having 24 hours off, firefighters are working nonstop and getting little sleep. We're increasingly dependent on firefighters from other states.

Like all budgets, firefighting ones are limited, wherever the wildfire-fighting funds come from. And public-safety budgets are consuming the bulk of municipal spending these days. Most of that has to do with pay and benefit levels.

The median total compensation cost for a California firefighter ranges from $145,000 for state agencies to more than $196,000 in cities and counties, according to some estimates. Firefighters can earn $300,000 in overtime. The base salaries may be relatively modest, but overtime, pension obligations (firefighters typically retire at age 50 with 90 percent or more of their final year's pay) and other benefits drive these costs into the stratosphere.

Furthermore, California has some of the highest firefighting costs in the nation. That largely has to do with our dry climate and geography, with vast wilderness areas abutting massive population centers. But this shortfall also is because of the salary structure and pension system, with the way governments spend their existing resources. There's a reason that thousands of applicants may line up for a small number of firefighting openings. Those pay packages are hard to fathom considering that a majority of the nation's firefighters do this work on a volunteer basis.

This may be a difficult time to discuss the compensation of firefighters. Firefighting isn't one of the more dangerous professions according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Loggers, fishers, pilots, roofers, refuse workers, iron and steel workers, drivers, farmers, power-line workers and groundskeepers top the list. But there's no question firefighting can be a very dangerous job, and we're all appreciative of the dangers firefighters are enduring now.

Nevertheless, this is a simple math problem. If fire officials spend unnecessarily high amounts on existing workers, they have less money to hire more people. There could be far more firefighters available to fight disastrous fires if overly generous pension payments didn't consume such a large portion of local budgets.

A new study from Stanford University's Institute for Economic Policy Research found that public-employer pension contributions have soared by 400 percent over 15 years even though operating budgets have not grown nearly that much. This "crowds out" public services. That means that the state government and municipalities can higher fewer employees, which means fewer firefighters, also.

As deadly fires rage, this might not be the easiest time to discuss this, but we need to face the obvious. One of the best ways to prepare for future wildfires is for the state to get its pension and compensation systems under control.

This column first appeared in the Orange County Register.

Palo Alto "gets real" with Government Services and Pensions. (Time for Marinwood to do the same)

City pension woes hit home as shortfall hits $405 million

September 26, 2017 11:27 am

BY ELAINE GOODMAN
Daily Post correspondent

As the city of Palo Alto looks for ways to reduce its massive employee pension shortfall, residents might soon start feeling the impact, officials said.

City services could be reduced. Pay and benefits for city employees might be affected. And the pension gap could influence how often the city hires outside contractors to perform services.

The city doesn’t pay pension benefits for the contractors, and so outsourcing might make sense in more situations, city council members said during a meeting of the City Council Finance Committee this month.

During the meeting, City Manager Jim Keene warned council members about challenges that may arise from tackling the pension issue.

“We haven’t at all talked about the real-life realities … about implementing changes that force reallocations,” Keene said. “Even outsourcing in and of itself can be quite challenging to the community — particularly when you’re not in a crisis mode. We all just know human nature. The thing is, ‘why are you guys doing all of this? Why do I have to have a contract street sweeper? It was so much better when Public Works did it.’ There will be a hundred issues
like that, potentially.”

The city of Palo Alto’s shortfall for covering employee pension costs shot up by nearly 20% in one year, reaching $405 million as of June 2016, according to new data that was presented to the Finance Committee.

The $405 million figure is an increase from a pension shortfall of $338 million as of June 2015 and $250 million in mid-2014, according to the projections by the California Public Employees Retirement System, or CalPERS. The new figure is close to double the amount of the city’s $210 million general-fund budget for this fiscal year.

The unfunded liability

The pension shortfall — also known as the unfunded liability — is the difference between what will be needed to pay employee pensions into the future and the amount that’s been set aside.

CalPERS determines the unfunded liability amount by estimating how much will be needed to pay for pensions of current and future retirees. Another variable is how much CalPERS will earn from investments of the money it collects. A lower rate of return means that cities will need to contribute more to cover pension costs.

CalPERS announced in December that it would start using a lower rate of return in its calculations, decreasing the rate from the current 7.5% to 7% over three years starting next fiscal year. That’s expected to cause a sizable increase in the city’s annual CalPERS payment, and will also increase the amount of the pension shortfall.

Palo Alto officials are concerned that the actual rate of return will turn out to be 6.5% or even lower. Councilman Eric Filseth, who chairs the Finance Committee, said in May that the city’s pension gap could actually be between $500 million and $800 million.

At this month’s committee meeting, Filseth said he wants to “get the numbers right” before developing strategies to reduce the pension gap. “Because once the other stuff starts, once we start on a funding strategy, even the numbers, there’s going to be a tendency to try to politicize those,” Filseth said.

Explaining the problem to the public

Finance Committee members said this month that they want to find a way to explain the pension dilemma to the public in easy-to-understand terms. For example, the city’s payments to CalPERS thus far could be viewed as similar to making a minimum payment due on a personal credit card. The minimum payment does little toward paying off a large outstanding balance.

Councilman Greg Tanaka said when the city discusses the cost of employees, the expense of pensions should be considered as well as salaries. The pension costs should be a factor in situations such as labor negotiations and in deciding whether to contract out a job rather than have a city employee perform it, he said.

“That’s really important to have every figure for labor framed as our true cost,” Tanaka said.

The Finance Committee will continue discussing the pension issue in a series of meetings this fall, and is expected to make recommendations on how the city can approach the issue.

City attempts to reduce the debt

Chief Financial Officer Lalo Perez told council members that they could decide to “bite the bullet” and pay off a large portion of the pension gap in a short time. The question would be how such a move would impact city services, he said.

The city has been reducing pension benefits to new employees over the last several years by increasing the pension eligibility age and decreasing the amount paid.

Another issue is how much the worker pays toward their pension, Keene noted.

“The distribution of the cost between the employee and employer is not set in stone,” Keene said. “That can be renegotiated and actually, in some ways we’re behind some other jurisdictions as far as shifting more of the growth and the increasing cost to the employee.”

Editor's Note:  The Marinwood Fire District receives $2.8 million in local taxes (plus funding from the State for strike team services and "insurance reimbursements" when ambulance services are rendered.    CSA #19, a fire service district consisting of Santa Venetia, Los Ranchitos and Country Club pays the city of San Rafael only $1.7 million dollars to cover fire protection for a MUCH LARGER area.  Marinwood Fire Department spends 2/3rds of its service time OUTSIDE of Marinwood CSD serving North San Rafael FOR ALMOST NO COMPENSATION from San Rafael.   

Marinwood CSD pays more than ONE MILLION DOLLARS more for fire service and it gets used 2/3 of the time in neighboring San Rafael.    We Marinwood CSD taxpayers are getting a raw deal.  Of course we are proud of our fire department but the costs should be spread fairly between us and neighboring jurisdictions.    We need to OUTSOURCE our fire protection just like we do with Marin County Sheriff.  Our costs should ONLY reflect what is serviced in Marinwood/Lucas Valley and not subsidize protection elsewhere.

The pensions for the fire department ALONE amount to millions of dollars in liability. 2300 homeowners in Marinwood CSD cannot be expected to carry this burden alone.