City agrees to new library

[jpinpb]

XBoxBoy – Don’t even get me started on the Charger’s stadium! We need that like this whole City needs to be devoured by a giant sinkhole.

[jimmyle]

Damn, we can’t even keep the current libraries in the city open full-time why do we need more?

[jimmyle]

Damn, we can’t even keep the current libraries in the city open full-time why do we need more?

[jimmyle]

Damn, we can’t even keep the current libraries in the city open full-time why do we need more?

[jimmyle]

Damn, we can’t even keep the current libraries in the city open full-time why do we need more?

[jimmyle]

Damn, we can’t even keep the current libraries in the city open full-time why do we need more?

[jpinpb]

[quote=jimmyle]Damn, we can’t even keep the current libraries in the city open full-time why do we need more?[/quote]

EXACTLY!

So what will happen is we’ll end up having a new library that the taxpayers will pay for that will be open 4 hours a day.

Financial geniuses. I have a 5-yo nephew that can make more sense out of this mathematical equation.

But XBoxBoy is right. I’d much rather see a new library than a Charger’s stadium. They already screwed us out of a library once when they built the ballpark d/t.

[jpinpb]

[quote=jimmyle]Damn, we can’t even keep the current libraries in the city open full-time why do we need more?[/quote]

EXACTLY!

So what will happen is we’ll end up having a new library that the taxpayers will pay for that will be open 4 hours a day.

Financial geniuses. I have a 5-yo nephew that can make more sense out of this mathematical equation.

But XBoxBoy is right. I’d much rather see a new library than a Charger’s stadium. They already screwed us out of a library once when they built the ballpark d/t.

[jpinpb]

[quote=jimmyle]Damn, we can’t even keep the current libraries in the city open full-time why do we need more?[/quote]

EXACTLY!

So what will happen is we’ll end up having a new library that the taxpayers will pay for that will be open 4 hours a day.

Financial geniuses. I have a 5-yo nephew that can make more sense out of this mathematical equation.

But XBoxBoy is right. I’d much rather see a new library than a Charger’s stadium. They already screwed us out of a library once when they built the ballpark d/t.

[jpinpb]

[quote=jimmyle]Damn, we can’t even keep the current libraries in the city open full-time why do we need more?[/quote]

EXACTLY!

So what will happen is we’ll end up having a new library that the taxpayers will pay for that will be open 4 hours a day.

Financial geniuses. I have a 5-yo nephew that can make more sense out of this mathematical equation.

But XBoxBoy is right. I’d much rather see a new library than a Charger’s stadium. They already screwed us out of a library once when they built the ballpark d/t.

[jpinpb]

[quote=jimmyle]Damn, we can’t even keep the current libraries in the city open full-time why do we need more?[/quote]

EXACTLY!

So what will happen is we’ll end up having a new library that the taxpayers will pay for that will be open 4 hours a day.

Financial geniuses. I have a 5-yo nephew that can make more sense out of this mathematical equation.

But XBoxBoy is right. I’d much rather see a new library than a Charger’s stadium. They already screwed us out of a library once when they built the ballpark d/t.

[Coronita]

[quote=jpinpb][quote=jimmyle]Damn, we can’t even keep the current libraries in the city open full-time why do we need more?[/quote]

EXACTLY!

So what will happen is we’ll end up having a new library that the taxpayers will pay for that will be open 4 hours a day.

Financial geniuses. I have a 5-yo nephew that can make more sense out of this mathematical equation.

But XBoxBoy is right. I’d much rather see a new library than a Charger’s stadium. They already screwed us out of a library once when they built the ballpark d/t.[/quote]

I’m still hoping our city/state files for BK to reset all the debt. I know it’s going to be an armagaedon, but oh well. Better now versus later.

I guess now wouldn’t be a good time to bring up San Diego pensions, would it? Hey, might as well kick the can around while you folks are already in a foul mood right now….heh heh heh.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/jun/28/city-scores-another-pension-related-victory/

City scores another pension-related victory

By Craig Gustafson, UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

Monday, June 28, 2010 at 2:55 p.m.

The city of San Diego continues to score court victories related to pension benefits and slowly chip away at a $2 billion-plus debt that threatens to overwhelm the city budget.

The latest ruling by Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Barton targets one of the city’s most controversial benefits: the Deferred Retirement Option Plan, commonly known as DROP. The program, which began in 1997, allows employees to collect pension payments in a special account while still employed.

The city negotiated labor agreements in 2005 that eliminated the benefit for employees hired after July 1 of that year. But the City Council didn’t formally adopt the deals until February 2007 because then-City Attorney Michael Aguirre delayed creating the ordinance until then.

The board of the San Diego Employees’ Retirement System determined that it would allow the 956 new workers hired during that delay to remain eligible to use DROP. The city argued that they should be ineligible.

In a June 17 decision, Barton ruled that the benefit should have stopped in 2005 because it was clearly the city’s intent and the benefit can’t be considered a vested right for employees hired after that date. He also said the labor agreements reached that year assumed that there could be a delay in formal adoption of the deals.

City Attorney Jan Goldsmith, who announced the ruling Monday, said the judge’s decision will further reduce the city’s annual pension payment due Thursday by $209,000 and create long-term savings of roughly $4 million. In addition, the change would save about $14 million in retiree health benefits.

“The labor unions and city agreed to end the benefits for new employees, but SDCERS hired very expensive lawyers to seek a loophole for 900 new employees,” Goldsmith said. “SDCERS should stop these expensive crusades and, instead, focus on the job of wisely investing retirement plan assets.”

A spokeswoman for the pension system did not respond to a request for comment.

[Coronita]

[quote=jpinpb][quote=jimmyle]Damn, we can’t even keep the current libraries in the city open full-time why do we need more?[/quote]

EXACTLY!

So what will happen is we’ll end up having a new library that the taxpayers will pay for that will be open 4 hours a day.

Financial geniuses. I have a 5-yo nephew that can make more sense out of this mathematical equation.

But XBoxBoy is right. I’d much rather see a new library than a Charger’s stadium. They already screwed us out of a library once when they built the ballpark d/t.[/quote]

I’m still hoping our city/state files for BK to reset all the debt. I know it’s going to be an armagaedon, but oh well. Better now versus later.

I guess now wouldn’t be a good time to bring up San Diego pensions, would it? Hey, might as well kick the can around while you folks are already in a foul mood right now….heh heh heh.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/jun/28/city-scores-another-pension-related-victory/

City scores another pension-related victory

By Craig Gustafson, UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

Monday, June 28, 2010 at 2:55 p.m.

The city of San Diego continues to score court victories related to pension benefits and slowly chip away at a $2 billion-plus debt that threatens to overwhelm the city budget.

The latest ruling by Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Barton targets one of the city’s most controversial benefits: the Deferred Retirement Option Plan, commonly known as DROP. The program, which began in 1997, allows employees to collect pension payments in a special account while still employed.

The city negotiated labor agreements in 2005 that eliminated the benefit for employees hired after July 1 of that year. But the City Council didn’t formally adopt the deals until February 2007 because then-City Attorney Michael Aguirre delayed creating the ordinance until then.

The board of the San Diego Employees’ Retirement System determined that it would allow the 956 new workers hired during that delay to remain eligible to use DROP. The city argued that they should be ineligible.

In a June 17 decision, Barton ruled that the benefit should have stopped in 2005 because it was clearly the city’s intent and the benefit can’t be considered a vested right for employees hired after that date. He also said the labor agreements reached that year assumed that there could be a delay in formal adoption of the deals.

City Attorney Jan Goldsmith, who announced the ruling Monday, said the judge’s decision will further reduce the city’s annual pension payment due Thursday by $209,000 and create long-term savings of roughly $4 million. In addition, the change would save about $14 million in retiree health benefits.

“The labor unions and city agreed to end the benefits for new employees, but SDCERS hired very expensive lawyers to seek a loophole for 900 new employees,” Goldsmith said. “SDCERS should stop these expensive crusades and, instead, focus on the job of wisely investing retirement plan assets.”

A spokeswoman for the pension system did not respond to a request for comment.

[Coronita]

[quote=jpinpb][quote=jimmyle]Damn, we can’t even keep the current libraries in the city open full-time why do we need more?[/quote]

EXACTLY!

So what will happen is we’ll end up having a new library that the taxpayers will pay for that will be open 4 hours a day.

Financial geniuses. I have a 5-yo nephew that can make more sense out of this mathematical equation.

But XBoxBoy is right. I’d much rather see a new library than a Charger’s stadium. They already screwed us out of a library once when they built the ballpark d/t.[/quote]

I’m still hoping our city/state files for BK to reset all the debt. I know it’s going to be an armagaedon, but oh well. Better now versus later.

I guess now wouldn’t be a good time to bring up San Diego pensions, would it? Hey, might as well kick the can around while you folks are already in a foul mood right now….heh heh heh.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/jun/28/city-scores-another-pension-related-victory/

City scores another pension-related victory

By Craig Gustafson, UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

Monday, June 28, 2010 at 2:55 p.m.

The city of San Diego continues to score court victories related to pension benefits and slowly chip away at a $2 billion-plus debt that threatens to overwhelm the city budget.

The latest ruling by Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Barton targets one of the city’s most controversial benefits: the Deferred Retirement Option Plan, commonly known as DROP. The program, which began in 1997, allows employees to collect pension payments in a special account while still employed.

The city negotiated labor agreements in 2005 that eliminated the benefit for employees hired after July 1 of that year. But the City Council didn’t formally adopt the deals until February 2007 because then-City Attorney Michael Aguirre delayed creating the ordinance until then.

The board of the San Diego Employees’ Retirement System determined that it would allow the 956 new workers hired during that delay to remain eligible to use DROP. The city argued that they should be ineligible.

In a June 17 decision, Barton ruled that the benefit should have stopped in 2005 because it was clearly the city’s intent and the benefit can’t be considered a vested right for employees hired after that date. He also said the labor agreements reached that year assumed that there could be a delay in formal adoption of the deals.

City Attorney Jan Goldsmith, who announced the ruling Monday, said the judge’s decision will further reduce the city’s annual pension payment due Thursday by $209,000 and create long-term savings of roughly $4 million. In addition, the change would save about $14 million in retiree health benefits.

“The labor unions and city agreed to end the benefits for new employees, but SDCERS hired very expensive lawyers to seek a loophole for 900 new employees,” Goldsmith said. “SDCERS should stop these expensive crusades and, instead, focus on the job of wisely investing retirement plan assets.”

A spokeswoman for the pension system did not respond to a request for comment.

[Coronita]

[quote=jpinpb][quote=jimmyle]Damn, we can’t even keep the current libraries in the city open full-time why do we need more?[/quote]

EXACTLY!

So what will happen is we’ll end up having a new library that the taxpayers will pay for that will be open 4 hours a day.

Financial geniuses. I have a 5-yo nephew that can make more sense out of this mathematical equation.

But XBoxBoy is right. I’d much rather see a new library than a Charger’s stadium. They already screwed us out of a library once when they built the ballpark d/t.[/quote]

I’m still hoping our city/state files for BK to reset all the debt. I know it’s going to be an armagaedon, but oh well. Better now versus later.

I guess now wouldn’t be a good time to bring up San Diego pensions, would it? Hey, might as well kick the can around while you folks are already in a foul mood right now….heh heh heh.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/jun/28/city-scores-another-pension-related-victory/

City scores another pension-related victory

By Craig Gustafson, UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

Monday, June 28, 2010 at 2:55 p.m.

The city of San Diego continues to score court victories related to pension benefits and slowly chip away at a $2 billion-plus debt that threatens to overwhelm the city budget.

The latest ruling by Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Barton targets one of the city’s most controversial benefits: the Deferred Retirement Option Plan, commonly known as DROP. The program, which began in 1997, allows employees to collect pension payments in a special account while still employed.

The city negotiated labor agreements in 2005 that eliminated the benefit for employees hired after July 1 of that year. But the City Council didn’t formally adopt the deals until February 2007 because then-City Attorney Michael Aguirre delayed creating the ordinance until then.

The board of the San Diego Employees’ Retirement System determined that it would allow the 956 new workers hired during that delay to remain eligible to use DROP. The city argued that they should be ineligible.

In a June 17 decision, Barton ruled that the benefit should have stopped in 2005 because it was clearly the city’s intent and the benefit can’t be considered a vested right for employees hired after that date. He also said the labor agreements reached that year assumed that there could be a delay in formal adoption of the deals.

City Attorney Jan Goldsmith, who announced the ruling Monday, said the judge’s decision will further reduce the city’s annual pension payment due Thursday by $209,000 and create long-term savings of roughly $4 million. In addition, the change would save about $14 million in retiree health benefits.

“The labor unions and city agreed to end the benefits for new employees, but SDCERS hired very expensive lawyers to seek a loophole for 900 new employees,” Goldsmith said. “SDCERS should stop these expensive crusades and, instead, focus on the job of wisely investing retirement plan assets.”

A spokeswoman for the pension system did not respond to a request for comment.

[Author]

Posts