Report Inappropriate Comments

Consider this logic from the actuarial expert: To reduce the amount of money that is required to fund PolicI/FireI pension plan the recommendation to Mayor Avedisian was to negotiate contracts with current police/fire employees for no raises for the next three years. This will result in no COLA payment to the retired employees.

Now that COLA would typically be about 3.5% based on past raises to current employees.

So we are told we cannot afford to give 3.5% COLA payments to retirees in one breath, and in the other breath told that if the city can increase its contributions to the Police and Fire I pension plan by an average of 3.75% each year for the next twenty years - the fund will be funded above 60%.

Does anyone realize the utter contridiction in that logic?

Let me explain - ever without COLA payments, the taxpayers will still be required to pay an additional 3.75% compounded rate each year for the next twenty years. Does that equate to like payinga COLA anyways?

From: Mayor argues to hold course on pension plan

Please explain the inappropriate content below.