Possible security changes discussed by RMA BOD

[nana]

To follow up on Raelyn's post, yes, Sac county retirees could come out here and work under the PERS reitrement formula (2% @ 55 for all CSD employees); however, if you had a retiree from a PERS agency, they would in fact become a "retired annuitant" and be limited to about 900 hours per year. Some of those PERS retirees also are eligible to draw Social Security and SS places a cap on annual earnings withoput affecting one's benefits.
Those who might be interested would be the 50-ish retirees, not those receiving Social Security, so the last part is probably N/A. However, depending upon what RMA does re outsourcing security (even if just the gate ops), it would mean a lot of current CSD gate officers would become "surplus" should RMA opt for an outside provider.
That's why both RMA and CSD need to work together to resolve this issue once and for all to minimize negative impcts on all concerned. Looking at what the community wants and needs in Security now and into the foreseeable future is most critical, NOT merely suggesting it would only take about $1000 a month per officer to get a P.D. out here. How long do you think it would take Lafco to concur, negotiate, etc., before a real decsion was made?

[LisaT]

Originally Posted by nana

... However, depending upon what RMA does re outsourcing security (even if just the gate ops), it would mean a lot of current CSD gate officers would become "surplus" should RMA opt for an outside provider....

You are right nana, CSD and RMA do need to work together.

If RMA chooses to bring in their own security people, that doesn't mean that they will control the gates. CSD, in their security code has that responsibility and that is part of what we pay taxes for. RMA *does not* contract for that service.

In the past, there was a judgement made against CSD when they were trying to replace their security officers with a private firm, and I suspect that that will play a role in this case too.

Bottom line - RMA cannot decide to do away with the CSD gate officers. Those are CSD union employees which receive no monies from RMA.

I don't really think that residents who deduct their security taxes from their income tax want to give up their deduction.

And I'm sure that the CSD BOD understand that they are responsible for providing securit for *all* of the RMDistrict, and not just for the residents that belong to RMA. That will become more important as development continues.

[akulasquirrel]

Originally Posted by akulasquirrel

Right now, I don't think that there are any. Are there any statutory or regulatory restraints upon retirees that waive benefits to work somewhere because they're already receiving them (and I don't mean just LE jobs)? Have you ever considered that anyone qualified might just get a job or have a job as a Reserve Officer somewhere and work for the District for the benefits? I'm pretty sure that's happened. Twice. Maybe more. Relatively recently. That's another avenue to follow.

Saying that anyone can get fired from LE and take a job out here, as a CSD Officer, is a mighty accusation, even if indirect, that the CSD hires former LE that got fired.

See, because we got information from several different people, I was able to begin looking more deeply into this... and I found out some interesting info. CalPERS retirees going to work for a CalPERS employer is limited to 940 hours per year.

So, what did we learn? We learned as a group that marketing to Safety retirees is not a good idea...

Thanks, and it didn't turn into a brawl. We should do this more.

[LisaT]

Originally Posted by nana

... Looking at what the community wants and needs in Security now and into the foreseeable future is most critical, NOT merely suggesting it would only take about $1000 a month per officer to get a P.D. out here. How long do you think it would take Lafco to concur, negotiate, etc., before a real decsion was made?

I don't believe that there is one person who ever suggested that all it would take is to boost salaries of the officer to get a PD out here.

There are shorter term solutions and long term solutions. With a little thought, we might be able to plan for growth as reasonably as possible. The Ad Hoc governance committee is trying to do just that. You might be interested in what they ultimately come up with.

Posted via Mobile Device

[LisaT]

An afterthought about the gates.

In the future, when there are multiple HOAs, they will enjoy whatever security those gates give. As long as CSD maintains those employees, then everybody will share in the cost of those gates, regardless of which HOA they belong to.


Suppose, CSD divested itself of the gates and created those "surplus" employees. Then the RMA residents will pick up the tab for those employees and RMA residents will pay more than their share, while members of the other HOAs get the service for free.


So unless there is a grand scheme to put a lot of people out of work, and at the same time force RMA members to pay more than their fair share, nana, your interpretation of RMA's intentions doesn't make sense to me.

I could however see RMA wanting more security/compliance, separate from the gates, for their members.


Posted via Mobile Device

[Birdieman]

Originally Posted by LisaT

An afterthought about the gates.

In the future, when there are multiple HOAs, they will enjoy whatever security those gates give. As long as CSD maintains those employees, then everybody will share in the cost of those gates, regardless of which HOA they belong to.

Suppose, CSD divested itself of the gates and created those "surplus" employees. Then the RMA residents will pick up the tab for those employees and RMA residents will pay more than their share, while members of the other HOAs get the dervice for free.

So unless there is a grand scheme to put a lot of people out of work, and at the same time force RMA members to pay more than their fair share, nana, your interpretation of RMA's intentions don't make sense to me.

I could however see RMA wanting more security/compliance, separate from the gates, for their members.

Posted via Mobile Device

This post makes absolutely no sense.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by Birdieman

This post makes absolutely no sense.

I think what she is saying is that when PTF finally gets around to developing, the members of the New North won't be contributing to gate operations if RMA is manning the gates versus CSD since, unless the MBA says otherwise, RMA can't force the New North folks to pay one dime for RMA to run the gates.

On the other hand, if CSD continues to manage the gates, then New North contributes via the security tax.

[Wilbur]

And if it switched from CSD employees to RMA employees or an RMA contractor manning the gate, we'd be paying for those services with dues which are not tax deductible. I know everyone's tax picture varies, but the ability to deduct the security tax as an itemized deduction is worth a dime or two on the dollar. So unless the cost of the services (by say RMA hiring a Brinks type service to man the gates or hiring those same people but not having to pay PERS benefits) is at least fifteen or twenty percent less than what we pay for those services via that portion of the security tax, I think homeowners end up losing money after taxes. I suppose those tax savings are something else that needs to be quantified, and from what little can perhaps be divined from census data about income distribution maybe a guesstimate of the spread of tax brackets people are in can be ginned up to be able to plug into any analysis the tax consequences of shifting a dollar FROM a tax to a dues.

Generally the leverage is gained by shifting a dollar cost FROM dues TO taxes because after income taxes a dollar of TAX paid might cost you just six bits or 80 cents. But in some cases the savings of moving a function from CSD to the private sector might be SO great that it overcomes CSD's tax deduction advantage.

The deeper I get into this stuff the more I am impressed with just how many moving parts there are and that not all of them are readily apparent. Upon inspection, which entity has the right to control the gate, whether RMA can just unilaterally take that function back, which I had always lazily assumed without scrutiny, now appears to be a muddy question. One of many that ultimately may have to be addressed cooperatively, and perhaps with votes of the residents under both RMA and CSD auspices to approve some new arrangements. CSD's powers and duties with respect to the non-RMA landowners behind those gates could be a significant complication limiting some options about gate operations. One intriguing mechanism which has been floated is for CSD to remain the provider of services, but then contracting with RMA to do them, reaping the tax advantage of residents paying for it via security tax yet the possibly lesser expense and flexibility afforded by having it actually done by a private sector player.

[akulasquirrel]

Originally Posted by Luke

I think what she is saying is that when PTF finally gets around to developing, the members of the New North won't be contributing to gate operations if RMA is manning the gates versus CSD since, unless the MBA says otherwise, RMA can't force the New North folks to pay one dime for RMA to run the gates.

On the other hand, if CSD continues to manage the gates, then New North contributes via the security tax.

It goes deeper than that. If the RMA creates access policies that the other HOAs don't like, the other HOA(s) may end up suing the RMA to force changes in policy. That would get expensive for everyone. With the CSD managing the gates, all the other HOAs have to get together and hash out a gate policy that is acceptable to everyone. There won't be complete agreement with the policies, but at least that way everyone will abide by the policy.

Currently, the CSD runs both gates and owns one of them. This means that the CSD manages both gates...

[LisaT]

Originally Posted by akulasquirrel

.....Currently, the CSD runs both gates and owns one of them. This means that the CSD manages both gates...

Heh, heh, this means that security functions as LLE there, so if there are any crimes nearby, try to get them to move to the gates