However, the bottom line is this: 100% of the tax increase will go directly into the city's retirement pension system. This system is rapidly becoming unsustainable for a couple of reasons, which I'll outline below. The city manager is trying to make the case that this tax increase will somehow increase fire department coverage downtown, but that's a smokescreen to distract voters from the real fiscal disaster waiting in the wings.
The first, and most obvious reason for the sudden pension crisis is, of course, the current Great Recession. We're lucky in that the city publishes lots of information on their pension plans. You can peruse the information here: City of Grand Rapids - Retirement Systems. We can glean several things from the monthly pension reports. The graph below summarizes the balances of the pension funds.
The city maintains two pension funds. One is for the police and fire employees, the other (general) for all other employees. As of December 31, 2007, the combined balance of both funds was $753 million. As of December 31, 2008, the combined balance was $493 million, a stunning loss of $260 million, or -35%. This tells us important information. Much of the city's pension funds are clearly invested in risky assets, probably equities (stocks). For comparison, the S&P 500 stock index dropped 38% during the same period. This is an example of how the city's bureaucrats can promise bigger and bigger pension benefits during the good times. Since the pension fund obviously is sensitive to the market's ups and downs, the good times inflate the value of the pension funds, making it look like it's easier to offer better and better benefits without having to increase the city's costs.
But, then comes reality, crashing things down. When the market began to tank in 2007, it took the city's pension fund with it. This sort of drop slaughters the pension fund's solvency, and this is why the city must now contribute much more money just to keep the fund afloat. Of course, you'll notice that the fund has recovered, as of December 31, 2009, to the level of $590 million. This is an increase of approximately 20%, while the S&P 500 increased by 27% during the same period. The problem is that the current market rise has run out of steam. Over the last three months, the market is essentially flat and appears to have entered a new down trend.
If the city had simply invested in safer and more stable securities, such as US government bonds, the funds would be in far better shape. For instance, if the pension fund were invested in 30 year treasury bonds, the annual return would have been about 4.5%. Compounded annually, the city's pension funds would stand at about $836 million today, instead of $590 million (or a loss of around $246 million). But, a safe and secure growth rate like this would have constrained the city's ability to offer greater and greater levels of benefits. A conservative and thoughtful path of sustainable benefits was possible, but the city's leaders chose not to got that way.
So, what are the real consequences and costs of this problem? The graph below shows us the increase in the city's pension system contribution costs.
As you can see, the pension contribution cost is estimated to be $5.009 million this fiscal year (2010). This will increase to an estimated $26.66 million cost in 2015. That's a whopping 532% increase in just five years. Again, that's assuming a 7.5% stock market growth rate, so the reality may be much worse. But the important point of data is the difference in pension contribution costs between the current year and next year (2011). As stated, the current year's pension cost is about $5 million. Next year's is estimated to be $12.019 million. An increased cost of $7.01 million. Wait a minute. Where have I heard that number before? Ah, yes. Here:
News Headline: "Grand Rapids income tax increase could raise $7 million"
What's the logical conclusion? The entire tax increase will be spent on pensions. Oh, and that's just the first year. In 2012 the increased pension cost will be another $4 million. The year after that, an additional $3.5 million, and so on. By 2015, the city will have to raise taxes by $21 million a year, or three times more than the proposed tax increase, just to pay for pensions.
Are you ready to pony up?
But wait, there's more. Before readers try to make the argument that things would be fine without the current stock market conditions, please look deeper into the pension funds' built-in collapse. That's right - built-in collapse. This is the second reason for the current pension crisis.
It's been in front of our city leaders, but they have chosen not to deal with it. What am I talking about? The city receives an annual report on the pension system's health. You can read these reports here. The chart below is taken from this report (click on the chart to view it full size).
This chart shows us the number of active employees at the city who are participating in the pension plan versus the number of retired employees who are drawing benefits. This is generally referred to an active/retired employee ratio. In 1975 there were approximately 2.6 active employees for each retired employee. This means that the contributions made on behalf of the active employees were likely higher than the benefits being drawn by retired employees. Contrast this with the current ratio of close to one active employee for each retired employee. This means that active employees' and the city's pension contributions are likely just going straight out the door to pay for currently-retired employees. This trend will result in failure. It's the same principal as a Ponzi Scheme. Current "investments" just go right out to the door to pay benefits to others.
The following chart (from the same report) shows us the cost of pension benefits as a percentage of current employees' payroll (click to view full size):
This is the cost of unsustainable defined-benefit pension plans. As you can see, in 1975, the city contributed $5 for every $100 in payroll. This cost has ballooned to nearly $45 per $100 of payroll cost. You are now seeing exactly why the city budget has been squeezed. Even with fewer employees and a relatively flat budget, the city continually runs out of money and is forced to cut services.
We, as citizens, are seeing a degradation of basic city services so that pensions can be fully funded.
To put a cherry on top, the below is an excerpt from the pension report (Page B-1):
Voluntary Retirement. A member may retire after 30 years of service regardless of age, or after attaining age 62 and completing 8 years of service. Effective January 1, 2001, members covered by the Emergency Communications Operators Bargaining Unit, after attaining age 55 and completing 8 years of service. [emphasis added]
This means that if you're 62 and have worked for the city for only eight years, you get a lifetime pension. If you're part of the Emergency Communications Operators union, you can retire at 55 after only eight years of service. And you'll notice that this was approved as recently as 2001 by our city's leaders. The problem was compounded that recently. Now they think that citizens should pay for this through higher taxes.
The end result is that, due to our city leaders' absolute failure to manage finances well, they are trying to push the cost off onto taxpayers without doing anything to address the underlying problem. The politicians find it easier to raise taxes than deal with angry unions - and that's exactly what they are doing again. The city commission is afraid to tackle the real problem, so the easier path is to "kick the can down the road" and try and deal with it later. The problem is that eventually you are forced to deal with it. Instead of dealing with the issue when it was easy to manage, the city has gone beyond the point of being able to fix it without disruption. The current path of the city's pension fund is bankruptcy.
It's easy to spend and make promises when the times are good. But now the residents (and taxed non-residents) of Grand Rapids are being asked to pay for the politicians' and bureaucrats' inability to think ahead and act in their fiduciary capacity as representatives of the citizenry. Who do they work for? The city's unions or the city's citizens?
