Guest Commentary
by Chris Cate
Over the past year and a half, the San Diego County Taxpayers Association (SDCTA) has been gathering and analyzing data from 16 cities in the county to determine what taxpayers across the region are spending for “specialty pays.” Specialty pays, or special compensation, are add-ons in addition to base pay that cities report to the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) for the purpose of calculating employee pensions.
While some of the add-ons may sound familiar (uniform allowance or holiday pay, or example), others are head-scratchers. The cities of Coronado and San Marcos offer a sprinkler backflow premium (extra pay for workers who fix sprinklers). The cities of Coronado and Escondido have paid a tree crew premium (extra pay for workers who work in trees). And El Cajon offers a notary pay. In effect, some of these pays are being given to employees for simply doing their job, or are a required skill to have the job in the first place.
While we have known about specialty pays for some time, SDCTA wanted to understand the extent various specialty pays have been negotiated into labor contracts and the cost to taxpayers to provide these add-ons. In summary, 16 cities in the county have spent $90 million over the past 12 years to provide 33 different types of specialty pays to employees. Total annual costs of all cities have increased by 60 percent between fiscal year Fiscal Year 2000 and FY 2011.
Chula Vista spent the most ($20.6 million) on specialty pays and Santee spent the least ($212,000) during the period reviewed. On a per household basis, National City taxpayers shouldered the largest burden ($46) while Santee and Imperial Beach spent the lowest cost per household ($1.55) in FY 2011.
When the Legislature passed AB 340, the Public Employee Pension Reform Act (PEPRA), pensions were limited to calculations using “regular pay.” Since that time, CalPERS has stated over 80 types of specialty pays, including tree crew premium and notary pay, can still be included in an employee’s salary when calculating pension earnings. Combined with the fact that legislation has been introduced to exempt 20,000 employees from pension reform, it appears the legislation passed last year is beginning to unravel.
Therefore, SDCTA is encouraging taxpayers to join us in urging local city councilmembers to directly negotiate with employees to assess what are required qualifications to perform each job, and then eliminate having specialty pays paid out on top of those salaries.
Last but not least, cities need to become more transparent in how tax dollars are being spent. Cities should immediately begin displaying on public websites not only what specialty pays are being offered, but how much is being spent on each of these pays.
Click on the following links to read SDCTA’s specialty pay summary or full report.
# # #
Cate is the Interim President/CEO of the San Diego County Taxpayers Association
Comments 2
How about restricting how much a government bureaucrat can make in retirement? Set a cap; let’s say $200,000/year. No added retirement bonuses. I think that would be fair. If the person wanted more, then they should have gone into the private sector. As my dad put it back in the early 70s, he took a job with the state not to make a lot of money, but for job security and that is how it should be. Government employees should not be allowed to pull in a retirement more than the CEO (Governor) of that state.
Roger, while it’s fun to bash the top abusers (I do it too), they ain’t the core problem. Imposing your cap would be viscerally satisfying, but would do next to nothing when it comes to solving the problem — and detracts from facing the problem head on.
The problem is that HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of everyday CA career government employees are getting pensions 3-6 times higher than the private sector (not to mention many get retiree health care as well) — but we taxpayers end up paying most of the bill — and usually ALL of the shortfall. As the environmentalists love to say, this scheme is not sustainable.
Such giveaways are NOT needed to attract quality employees into government work. Furthermore, the fact that often these pensions are fully portable between agencies negates the “retention” reason often presented for such public employee pensions.