League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
Alameda County, CA November 6, 2012 Election
	Tony Daysog Answers Questions Candidate for Council Member; City of Alameda

The questions were prepared by the League of Women Voters of Alameda and asked of all candidates for this office.
Read the answers from all candidates (who have responded).

Questions & Answers

1. (Most pressing problem) What is the single most pressing problem facing the City in the next 24 months and how would you work with your elected colleagues to solve it?

The cities of Vallejo, Stockton, and San Bernadino went bankrupt because they failed to address their respective pension unfunded liabilities. We, in Alameda, need not panic + but we need to plan!

When it comes to understanding the City's "unfunded liabilities" issue,there are three key issues. The first two have to do with certain formulas in place, whereas the third has to do with the discrete magnitude of unfunded liabilities.

In total, Alameda has roughly $200 million in unfunded liabilities. According to Alameda 's most current audited Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, there are roughly $95 million in unfunded liabilities with regard to CalPERS, and another unfunded liability of roughly $100 million for post-employment health care. To be sure, city workers are not going to retire en masse tomorrow, forcing Alameda to cut a check in the amount of $200 million.

Again, we need not panic + but we need to plan!

The $95 million CalPERS-related unfunded liability is driven largely by the 3% at fifty retirement formula + the first of two sets of formulas discussed above. The first set of formula let's City Hall calculate how much in retirement each worker gets annually via CalPERS. The retirement formula for police is called "3% at 50", while for all other workers it's "2% at 55"; in other words, you multiply the 3% (in the case of police/fire) against the number of years served in Alameda, and that percentage is applied against an average of the final three years salary earned by a worker. So, if a police office worker for 25 years and her or his final average pay amounted to, say, $150,000, then through this first set of formula, this worker's annual CalPERS retirement pay is $112,500 (i.e. 25 X 3% X $150000 = $112,500). Thus, you can see how the "3% at 50" formula is driving many cities' including Alameda dire fiscal situation.

In addition to the 3% @ 50 / 2% @ 55 formulas, there is a second set of formulas, which tell how much the worker and the city contribute toward the CalPERS related retirement. In this second set of formulas, police/fire set aside 11 cents for every one dollar in pay toward their own CalPERS retirement fund; all other workers set aside roughly 8.9 cents for every one dollar in pay toward CalPERS. However, bear in mind that the 11 cents/$1 dollar and 8.9 cents/$1 dollar are **not** the total amount contributed funds toward workers' CalPERS retirement. CalPERS calculates the total ratio that needs to be set-aside for workers' retirement: so, according to CalPERS, Alameda needs to set aside roughly 31 cents for every $1 in police/fire pay, and 13 cents for every $1 in pay for all other words. As indicated, police/fire and other workers are already paying 11 cents and 8.9 cents for $1 in wage/salary respectively, meaning City Hall picks up the difference by contributing 20 cents per $1 salary for police/fire, and 4 cents in $1 in salary for all other workers.

But here's the problem: even as we (City Hall) are legally and contractually obligated to make good on the two sets of retirement formulas described above, for a variety of reasons, City Hall has not been adequately funding CalPERS and post-employment health plans, leading to the unfunded liability of $200 million. Why hasn't City Hall been socking away money? Largely because, right now, City Hall is already setting aside roughly $10 million a year on CalPERS, and a little under $2 million for post-employment health. But we really need to set aside more than $10 million for CalPERS and more than $2 million for post-employment health each year. So, in aggregate, we've set-aside "x", but we really need to set-aside "z", and the cumulative difference between "z" and "x" is $200 million: the issue is that City Hall is not socking away enough out of a concern for having enough money to pay for on-going municipal services.

Compounding the problem: the bulk of the $200 million in unfunded liability is not for current workers, but for workers who are already retired. So, as important as this is, simply changing the two sets of retirement formulas above is not enough to declare victory, so to speak.

The City Manager/City Treasurer/City Auditor are right now putting together a plan to deal with the unfunded liabilities of $200 million in a sustainable manner. I look forward to reviewing their plan; but, in reviewing their plan, I will be clear as to what I, as a Councilmember, expect to see:

. two-tiered system: any new police/fire must return to "2% at 55" . keep "2% at 55" in place for current non-police and fire worker . keep agreed-upon "3% at 50" for current police/fire in place, although put that on negotiating table . Increase worker contribution toward own retirement, meaning police-fire will contribute more than 11 cents on the dollar they are already contributing, recognizing that the legal maximum is 15 cents on the dollar. . Increase all other workers' CalPERS contributions above the 8.9 cents per $1 in pay they are already contributing . Implement furloughs to generate savings that are then re-programmed back toward retirement plans: for two years, change workers' 4 days-by-10 hour schedule to 4 days-by-9 hour hours, to generate savings over the year of up to 10% of GF wage/salaries expenditures (i.e. $4.2 million to $7.0 million). Because Alameda is already operating on a 4-day work week, and because very few people access City Hall from 8 to 9 am, this two-year furlough plan will not result in a reduction of services to the public; they are not open on Friday anyways. . During 2 year furlough period, identify City Hall positions that might be combined so as to deliver services in a more efficient manner, such that, **after** the 2-year furlough period, when these targeted positions are combined, we generate savings commensurate to annual $4.2 million to $7 million in savings generated during the furlough period. In this way, City Hall can begin to incrementally buy-down $200 million in unfunded liability. . "Lock Box": In late 1990s, Al Gore talked about setting aside Clinton's surplus into a "lock box" to shore up Social Security: similarly, City Hall must create a policy whereby a portion of any new money (such as sales tax from the upcoming Target project) must be set-aside to pay-down the $200 million in unfunded liability. . Be prepared to implement Jerry Brown's recent "50/50" CalPERS retirement, and other features of that plan: by "50/50", Brown meant that if City and bargaining groups don't come to an agreement in five years, cities can unilaterally impose the "50/50", which means all workers (police, fire, others) could be required to contribute up to 14% of their salaries toward retirement, with City matching that with a corresponding 14% of pay contribution (hence, "50/50")

What is NOT on the table for me: For me, privatizing basic municipal services is not a consideration, as I am convinced we can deal with the immediate and structural budgetary deficit through freezes, cuts, revenue policies, and new retirement formulas.

2. (Growth and development) What is your vision of Alameda ten years from now as it relates to residential growth and business development?

I see Alameda Point as a place where "life cycle" needs of local residents from across the City, as well as residents living there can be met. By "life cycle" needs, I mean a variety of things that everyone needs at different points in our lives:

· In terms of "life cycle" residential uses, we must plan affordable and well-designed townhouses for young adults, who, over time, might then move into larger single-family homes in historic Alameda; perhaps they will purchase homes of elderly-residents who want to scale-down from large homes to active senior housing, which we must also plan for at Alameda Point. So, if we're looking for one or a series of developer for Alameda Point, we need to understand what kind of successes they can point to with regard to implementing award-winning residential designs that speak to all ages and price points?

In terms of "life cycle" approaches to economic development, we need to pursue young businesses in burgeoning sectors + such as food/beverage manufacturing + encourage their growth at Alameda Point, and, once mature, encourage their further growth at Harbor Isle Business Park or Marina Village. So, if we're looking for one or a series of developer for Alameda Point, in the selection process, we need to understand how potential developers targeted and then subsequently attracted businesses in key sectors.

"Life cycle" economic development applies also to job development: we need to encourage businesses with an abundance of career pathways offering upward mobility. So, if we're looking for one or a series of developer for Alameda Point, we need to understand in what ways these entities targeted and attracted businesses with an abundance of career pathways. What strategies work; what strategies based on their experience work less well?

In terms of recreation, Alameda Point should have active recreation areas for young and young-at-heart to play informally or in organized sports activities; but we must also plan for recreational activities for persons of all ages who simply want to walk waterfront paths with beautiful view corridors or the Bay Area and San Francisco in the distance. So, if we're looking for one or a series of developer for Alameda Point, we need to understand what thought or strategies potential builders have in mind when it comes to including in the built environment active and passive recreational amenities?

3. (Partnership of city with schools) Good schools are important for a city's economic growth and well-being. What is the most effective way the City can partner with the school district to improve the academic performance and perception of our schools?

When prospective residents and business owners come to town, what's the first thing they always ask? First and foremost, they always want to know the quality of our schools. Thus, City Council must partner with the local school district.

When I was on Council, I re-surrected the then-dormant City Council/school board joint planning committee. I also successfully championed moving the school board meeting from the Old Alameda High School to the more modern Alameda City Hall. As a Councilmember, I also developed the city's traffic safety tool-kit, which led to 4-way stop signs near Franklin and Edison Elementary Schools, and improved pedestrian safety signage near Chipman and Haight schools.

But Councilmembers must be actively engaged with our school leaders, not just passively engaged. By this, I mean if I am on City Council and I see many schools closed (as a series of schools were closed in my West End neighborhood), I will raise my voice, because property values are a function of good and open public schools: I will ask, what can be done in the short, medium and long-term to keep our neighborhood schools open and vibrant. Likewise, as a Councilmember, I would ask questions about spending $500,000 a year on a lease for office space in a shopping center such as Marina Village in the West End, asking if the City can provide more affordable space at facilities such as at Alameda Point, or any other appropriate space owned by the city.

The quality of life requires close partnership between the City and school district. In that partnership, as a Councilmember, I will not refrain from asking tough questions the answers to which help the school district in ultimately achieving its primary mission of serving children.

---

Responses to questions asked of each candidate are reproduced as submitted to the League.  Candidates' responses are presented as submitted. Direct references to opponents are not permitted.

Read the answers from all candidates (who have responded).

Candidate Page || Feedback to Candidate || This Contest
SmartVoter Home (Ballot Lookup) || About Smart Voter

---

Created from information supplied by the candidate: October 29, 2012 21:43
Smart Voter <http://www.smartvoter.org/>
Copyright © League of Women Voters of California Education Fund   http://www.lwvc.org
The League of Women Voters neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office or political parties.