ABOUT THE CITY OF SASKATOON SUPERANNUATION PLAN

The City of Saskatoon has unilaterally locked out its transit employees represented by ATU Local 615. The City has also unilaterally imposed new terms on the Pension Plan that affects the rights and entitlements of active members of the Pension Plan. The City has recently sent a “Just the Facts” news release to members that contains incorrect and misleading information.

The ATU is deeply concerned about these changes and this misinformation. This notice sets out some of the key myths and facts about the changes the City has imposed on members.

Myth #1:         The City is still providing a defined benefit plan to its employees.

Fact:                False.

The changes imposed by the City fundamentally change the nature of the Pension Plan from a contributory defined benefit plan, in which the employer is liable for any plan costs not negotiated and paid by plan members to a fixed cost, target benefit type pension plan.

The changes impose the key features of a fixed cost, target benefit plan: they limit or cap contributions to the Pension Plan by the City and employees. If these contributions are not sufficient to meet the needs of the Pension Plan from time to time, the new terms require that future benefits be cut in some way.

The City is incorrect and misleading in calling the amended Pension Plan the same type of defined benefit plan it had in place before. True defined benefit plans have fixed defined benefits and flexible contributions that can increase and decrease as needs require. The new terms the City imposed impose caps on contributions and would require cuts to future benefits in some cases.

It is true that the city cannot reduce past or accrued benefits under these new changes. Retirees pensions and active members past service (also called accrued benefits) cannot be reduced under current legislation. Instead, any future funding problem in the plan will require deeper cuts to future benefits.

In contrast, before these amendments were unilaterally imposed, the City was responsible for paying any extra cost over and above negotiated contributions. The City has shifted this burden onto employees, particularly younger employees who have yet to accrue many pension benefits.

.

Myth #2:         The City has no responsibility for actuarial valuations and no influence over the required contributions to the Pension Plan.

Fact:                False.

The Pension Plan is sponsored by the City, and the City negotiates contributions to the Pension Plan, as well as negotiating benefits paid under the Plan. It has the ability to agree to pay the costs necessary to maintain the contributory, defined benefit pension plan it has always provided to employees.

The Pension Plan is administered by a Board of Trustees. At least half the trustees are appointed by the City. The City has significant influence over the funding of the Pension Plan by its role as a sponsor and in its power to appoint City representatives to the Board of Trustees. City Manager Murray Totland and Councillor Pat Lorje sit as trustees of the plan. Murray Totland has sat as a trustee over the years since 2000.

Myth #3          The ATU caused an additional $6.7 million deficit in the Pension Plan.

Fact:               False.

According to the actuarial valuations approved by the Board of Trustees of the Pension Plan (where the City appoints 50% of the Board), the Pension Plan had a $68 million deficit at December 31, 2012. This actuarial valuation included a “margin” or additional money set aside for contingencies. The size of the margin was 10% of all Pension Plan liabilities, or about $70 million. If no margin were employed, there would likely have been no deficit in 2012. The cause of the 2012 deficit was the introduction of a 10% margin.

When the Board of Trustees “updated” the actuarial valuation following negotiations with the other bargain units, the new valuation only used a 5.4% margin. No explanation was given as to why, now, the Board of Trustees determined that only 5.4% was needed, now that other bargaining units had made concessions in bargaining.

Even worse, the June, 2014 update did not reflect positive investment gains during 2013 and 2014, but did reflect the significant concessions made by other bargaining units. If the positive investment gains had been reflected, it is very likely that the Pension Plan would be fully funded today, including a 10% margin.

The City is misleading members when it states that the ATU caused the pension deficit and that radical changes are needed to address the pension deficit. The City is attempting to bargain with the ATU on information that is over two years old and is very misleading. The ATU has had independent advisors including legal counsel review this information and confirm that the Pension Plan is likely to be fully funded today even without any concessions by the ATU.

Which comes first – the chicken or the egg? If you solve that puzzle, then you can solve the next riddle: Which comes first, necessary infrastructure or the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service?
Whenever a sales pitch is presented telling me I am getting a top quality product for a bargain basement price, my inner voice says “yeah, right” and my Spidey senses start tingling. My inner voice was screaming and my body tingling when Alan Wallace, the director of planning and development for Saskatoon, said the estimated cost of the proposed rapid transit plan is between $44.2 and $66.3 million. And a plus or minus factor of $22.1 million was disconcerting, especially when you consider the city’s less than stellar record of bringing projects in on time and on budget.
However, to fully implement the plan over the upcoming years, the city will have to build another bridge connecting the east side of the river to 33rd Street. How can this possibly happen with a budget capped at $66.3 million?
The short answer is it can’t. The bridges and necessary railway underpasses and roadway infrastructure are not included in this price. Those costs will be included in the $1.4 billion infrastructure spending planned over the next few decades. (Reminder to self: $1 billion is 1,000 million dollars, which is a hefty expenditure for any mid-sized city to bear, keeping in mind that this is only one budget line.)
So why play with numbers? Why not give a report saying how much the total package will cost, inclusive of infrastructure, and say this is what we will spend over the next three decades to build a good, reliable, affordable public transit system, be it bus or train? Why try selling us a measly $66 million plan by comparing it to other cities like Winnipeg, London or Calgary, cities that spent in excess of $500 million for rapid public transit, when if this plan proceeds we will be spending an equivalent amount over the coming decades? Is it the snowball theory, that being when Council comes back and says, “we have already spent $66 million and we can’t quit now” when justifying squeezing us for the balance needed to complete the project? Whatever happened to that old adage “honesty is the best policy?”
Jarrett Walker, a purported expert in the field of public transportation, has already pointed to the fact that although curbside lanes may be cheaper, they are also slower and less reliable. In debate, the most lucid comment is attributed to Councillor Darren Hill when he questioned whether the City was being short-sighted by opting for the cheaper curbside option today with less economic benefit overall in the future.
Walker also points out that higher bus ridership and total city coverage contradict each other. That prompted transit manager Jim McDonald to add that the system’s long-term plan is to decrease service coverage and increase frequency, which in turn will supposedly increase ridership. That prompted Councillor Randy Donauer to express concern for walking distances to BRT stops for riders, especially in light of our harsh winters (and especially for those citizens with mobility issues.) Walker responded that weather is not generally used as a factor in establishing rapid transit stops. It should be remembered that Walker is from Oregon where the weather rarely dips below zero and snowfall is infrequent.
McDonald says transit will experiment this summer by running buses every five minutes along Eighth Street but without using dedicated lanes. I am bewildered as to how this will work given that buses will experience the same traffic problems private vehicles currently do. Envision bumper-to-bumper buses waiting to get back into moving traffic when pulling away from a transit stop. Add to the fray cyclists leisurely pedalling down the middle of road. If the City wants to pilot this system, then use dedicated lanes and give the public a taste of how this BRT really works. (Then again, maybe this is all part of Wallace’s Eighth Street redesign project presented a while back.)
Councillors Darren Hill and Pat Lorje are opposed to the proposed 33rd Street bridge. (Both have ward boundaries abutting 33rd Street.) Hill has called it the “over my dead body” bridge. Let’s anticipate a state funeral for Hill. Lorje is adamantly opposed to a 33rd Street bridge, but if there is to be a bridge it should be a walking/cycling only. I’m scratching my head trying to figure out how this fits into the BRT plan. Councillor Troy Davies, whose ward also touches on 33rd Street, points out that the City has spent years trying to divert traffic away from this east-west roadway and the proposed bridge would defeat that effort. So many concerns, so few answers.
What I don’t get is why Council promotes a sustainable, walkable, high-density city core, phasing out a reliance on vehicular traffic city-wide in favour of public transportation, and at the same time spends hundreds of millions of dollars on bridges and roadway infrastructure for the driving convenience of the ever-expanding suburbs. (More head scratching – maybe I have dandruff!)
Without a doubt, every city can benefit from a good, reliable, efficient and affordable public transportation system and Council should be commended for forward planning. I have used good public transit systems in major cities and in each instance they have been centre lane systems. These cities have featured park-and-ride parking lots, as well as small commuter buses that link BRT patrons to their neighborhoods. I’m not convinced this proposed plan will get us to that end result. I am also not convinced that a City our size can carry the full financial burden of this plan if the anticipated population growth is stunted. Before Council starts spending hundreds of millions of dollars, I’d like to see the whole picture rather than a sketch.
Whatever happens, transit employees will have to be on side to make this plan work. I can’t see a lot of co-operation coming from those employees given the four-year stalemate on contract negotiations and the animosity between the union and management arising from illegal lockout.
ehnatyshyn@gmail.com

Saskatoon Mayor Responds To Transit Situation

City Of Saskatoon Gives Atu 615 Lockout Notice

Lock Out Video

Pension Presentation

Currently our operator rate (fixed route conventional rate of pay is $23.85 per hr. With the proposed wage settlement of 10% over 4 years expiring Dec.31, 2016, the rate of pay would be $26.30 per hour.

The current western Canadian average today using the following 5 cities is $30.07. Calgary ($34.59) Edmonton($34.01) Lethbridge($27.30) Red Deer($28.91) Regina ($25.58). Accepting this offer would mean we would be $3.77 per hr  below Todays current Western Canadian Average. As Of Jan.1/15 our wage would be $25.56 per hour or the equivalent of 89% of the WCA.

Our proposal is that we use this WCAveraging formula at the rate of 95% as of April 2015 to determine until the end of 2016 what our pay would increase. Using todays information, this would mean effective April 1, 2015, $28.56 or 95% of WCA is where we would be based on our proposal. Using todays rates that would equate to $0.98 per hr increase over their offer. 3 Of these 5 cities are currently negotiating with 1 more expiring the end of this year. Currently our Saskatoon Police have used this almost identical formula to determine their wage increases for their last 2 agreements. They are at 98% of the WCAverage. Wage comparisons with other cities is a fair and equitable way to determine rates in Saskatoon. We are not asking to be at 100% or even 98%. When cities such as Red Deer and Lethbridge value their operators at $27.30 and $28.91 today, why are we only offered $26.30 up until the end of 2016?

Why are we paid less to haul people than our brothers and sisters hauling garbage? No disrespect to our brothers and sisters hauling garbage for the city of Saskatoon, but moving people safely should be as important as moving refuse.

These comparable cities obviously value the work and compensate accordingly. Saskatoon should do the same. This formula would be the template for all other equally important classifications in our CBA. Whatever the WCA increase is ,it would automatically apply to all classifications and be calculated in April and October of 2015,2016 in our proposal.

This would mean that we would never find ourselves lower than 95% of the WCA and secure that we would not be the lowest paid in Western Canada .The city has stated they have no interest in this proposal and just recently offered us the same offer that was available in Dec.2015.