I just finished a story, running tomorrow, about how the cost of paying for county retirements has climbed to $117 million a year. Around $1 out of every $10 in the county budget is going to fund retirement costs.

The general employee union seems willing to talk about changes to reduce the impact of those costs on the county — maybe because their employees are working in shops and offices where half the jobs are empty.

But I've heard other employees complain that they don't want to sacrifice retirements for pay raises.

Is all the fuss over sweet retirement deals and their costs just hoopla? How do we solve the problem if it isn't?


James Burger

I spent a good bit of my week digging through the bowels of the County of Kern's annual budget.

It goes to public hearings on Monday, August 28 and will probably get approved by the Board of Supervisors that week.

It's an interesting budget (stories in the paper and on the web will explore some of the most interesting bits next week) with a clear philosophy behind it.

And I'm curious what people think about the spending plan.

Basically the idea behind the plan works like this:
• property tax revenues are up because of high oil prices and the cooling-but-still-warm housing market.
• the good times won't last forever.
• we've got a lot of neglected roads and equipment and capital projects.
• we're having a hard time hiring for already approved positions
SO
• lets put some money away for the lean times.
• lets hire some people for critical jobs — but leave our staffing levels pretty much the same.
• and then lets buy Sheriff's cars, fill potholes and get some other clean up work done.

Is that what Kern County taxpayers want from their government?

James Burger