December 9, 2007

City pensioneers likely to get more money

Nearly 400 city retirees may get a welcome holiday surprise.
For only the second time ever, city leaders are poised to hand out cost-of-living increases to municipal retirees that will provide at least $10 a month extra. Some may get as much as $350 a month in additional pension money.
The move has the backing of the city’s Retirement Board and Salary Committee. It still needs the backing of the City Council, which is likely to come Tuesday.
Diane Ferguson, the city’s personnel director, said the hikes will add about $5 million to the payments that retirees receive.
Though it sounds like a lot of money, the city’s retirement trust funds, which can only be used to benefit former city workers, had $565 million at the end of October. That’s so far in excess of projected pension payouts that the city hasn’t had to put any money into the funds in years.
John Boi, a retired park worker who used to head the Retirement Board, said that the overfunding is so great that the increases can be paid out easily.
He said it will be “a big help for a lot of people,” particularly the oldest retirees whose checks are so low “they might as well be getting dust.”
The proposal that councilors will consider would add 75 percent of the annual cost-of-living increase to pension funds for each year back to 2002, the first time any pension hikes were given.
That means that workers who were retired in 2002 could get up to 16 percent more each month if the council endorses the idea. More recent retirees would get less.
City Treasurer Bill Veits said that workers who retired in 2005, for example, will get 5.58 percent more, or two years’ worth of cost-of-living adjustments.
There are 393 retired workers who will be affected by the change, officials said. Twenty two of them will receive the $350 maximum monthly increase while five will get $10 a month more.
Ferguson said the hikes are actually higher than the wage increases the city has given out over the same period.
She pointed out that the city is under no obligation to give retired workers an increase in their monthly pension checks, except for retired police officers and firefighters who negotiated pension cost-of-living hikes as part of their union deals.
Though the pension giveaway doesn’t cost taxpayers anything directly, it could in the long run change the financial picture enough to make it so the city would again need to put cash into the funds.
Councilor Cliff Block said there is a risk of that happening, but it appears remote.
“It’s a humanitarian thing to me,” Block said.
Veits said that the city doesn’t ever have to offer another cost-of-living hike if the money isn’t there in the future.
Councilor Mike Rimcoski said he’s not sure how he’ll explain his support for the measure to hard-pressed constituents but he doesn’t want to fight the move.
“I was told a long time ago to pick your battles and when you’re beat, admit it,” Rimcoski said. Still, he said, “I’m not a happy camper” about the plan moving ahead.
The chairman of the Salary panel, Councilor Frank Nicastro, did not participate in the discussion or vote because he receives a pension for his years as mayor and serving as a truant officer.

Change may have a fiscal impact
Though city pension funds are more flush than ever, and far better funded than nearly every other city in America, a new accounting necessity could change the picture suddenly.
To meet the new accounting standards, the city has to come up with $180 million to pay for a decade of health coverage for every retired worker – money that’s been promised but never set aside.
Officials are eyeing the pension funds as the easiest and perhaps best place to get the extra money that’s going to be needed.
Most everywhere, the money’s going to be raised by squeezing taxpayers.
But Bristol has another option, as officials are keenly aware, because it may be able to shift the pension cash into a health care fund for retirees instead, since the money would help the same people.The city’s pension funds have racked up twice what they need to pay out by investing wisely in stocks, bonds, real estate and more since starting the funds back in 1978.

*******
Copyright 2007. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

31 comments:

Anonymous said...

It didn't take Artie Ward and the good ole boys very long to start the handouts.

Raise you hand if you didn't see this coming.

Bristol voters will never learn.

Anonymous said...

Does Mike Rimcowski understand that this COLA will not cost the taxpayers anything? That it will be paid out of interest earned on money that the workers (not the taxpayers) themselves contributed to the fund in past years? Judging from his comments, I don't think he does.

Anonymous said...

Do the retirees in question also receive social security?

Anonymous said...

I'd have more respect for them if they gave every retiree an extra $100 a month so it would make a MAJOR difference to the oldest retirees, whose pensions are low, and less of a difference to well-compensated recent retirees.

Anonymous said...

10:22.. Mega-Dittos!

11:00..Nothing the government gets costs nothing to the tax payers. Stop your spinning!

Anonymous said...

"10:22.. Mega-Dittos!

11:00..Nothing the government gets costs nothing to the tax payers. Stop your spinning!"

And you should try to think for yourself instead of channeling that pompous hypocrite Rush Limbaugh. The Bristol taxpayers have not put a penny in the pension fund in years. That means this COLA will not cost the taxpayers anything, because they don't pay anything. What part about this don't you understand?

Steve Collins said...

Actually, taxpayers haven't put money into it on the city in years. But the Board of Ed has been contributing some for its share -- for non-teacher employees -- and if this COLA is approved, Diane Ferguson said it's possible the Board of Ed will have to chip in a bit more.
We're talking perhaps $15K a year or so, I think, so it's peanuts compared to the overall pension fund. But it's not zero.

Steve Collins said...

As for the Social Security question: yes, they get Social Security.

Anonymous said...

"And you should try to think for yourself instead of channeling that pompous hypocrite Rush Limbaugh"

--Oh you nasty big-government blow-hard. You are a left-wing liar.

"The Bristol taxpayers have not put a penny in the pension fund in years"

--Like I said, "in years" so what? What does the administration cost Mr/Mrs Know-nothing? Where's my tax-payer pension? F.Y.!!

Anonymous said...

First, Art had nothing to do with the pension cola. It was in the works back in June. Second, Patty Ewin gets the credit for initiating this raise for retirees. Third, Keep in mind that even after the bubble burst in the stock market and 911, according to my information, the funds still remained overfunded. The people on the retirement board have saved the City of Bristol millions of dollars in taxes and bonding costs by operating in a very effecient manner.

Steve Collins said...

I should have been more clear: the police and firefighters don't pay into Social Security. Most city workers do.
However, this COLA increase is for most retired city workers, not police and fire. Police and fire retirees already have COLAs because the unions there got that provision in their contract.

Anonymous said...

Steve, why don't the police and firefighters pay into social security? I thought that all paychecks no matter what the career paid social security?

Anonymous said...

All retirees should be getting a COLA. The city pension fund is overfundedand they are the ones who should benefit.

Rimcoski is listening to the Stortz school of math.

If the BOE has to contribute more money than it will come from Bristol taxpayers. Hey maybe we can get rid of history all together to pay for it.

Anonymous said...

----I thought that all paychecks no matter what the career paid social security?

December 10, 2007 12:38 PM ----


Teachers do NOT pay into Social Security ... at least not from their part-time jobs w/ the school system ( I say part-time because their contract calls for no more than 4 hrs. of classtime per day and no more than 180 days per year )

btw .... as far as the idea that the taxpayers pay NOTHING into the retirement fund .... just where do you think that money does come from ?? TAXPAYERS that's where .... i'm sure the employees haven't gotten jobs in the private sector so that they could fund their retirement . Remember ... the TAXPAYERS pay their salaries ....

Anonymous said...

Steve - there seems to be a typo in your report: Diane Ferguson did not say that the increase COLA would cost $5 million annually- rather it will cost $5 million spread over a 20 year period.

Steve Collins said...

Thanks for the correction. I made a fix and will get the exact figures Tuesday night and put them in the next story or blog entry.

Anonymous said...

So right, the Police and Fire Depts. don't pay into social security and some don't (because there not allowed to) pay into medicare so there not intitled to that either when the retire. Apparently Mike Rimkowski doesn't know anything about city pensions. (Big surprise). Also, the Police Union made an agreement with the City so the City doesn't have to pay into the pension with matching funds which was the original agreement. This was allowed to save the tax payers money. Funny how he same city employees who fund the pension fund have to BEG during contract negotiations for a share of what they put in.

Anonymous said...

Based on existing legislation, Bristol is required to fund pension payments.
While employees did contribute, so did the city.
BUT, the success of the fund is due to investments, not contributions.
while it seems unlikely, at least for the short term, we could have a situation where the city has to contribute again.
Keep in mind, retirees are retiring earlier, living longer and now will have an increased amount.
You calculate how much of ones pension one paid for when they could get the eqivalent of full pay, or close to it each year.
There are many examples of retirees getting $60,000, $70,000, and even more, each year.
They maybe funded 1 or 2 years og ther pension, the rest came from the city and investments.

Anonymous said...

FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS REQUIRE THAT PROPER FUNDIND BE MAINTAINED BUT THEY ARE NOT ENFORCED>IE STATE TEACHERS PENSION FUND AND MANY OTHER CITY FUNDS ARE NOT PROPERLY FUNDED >THERE ARE ABOUT 25 RETIRES ABOVE 50000 DOLLARS OUT OF 400

Anonymous said...

Give it a rest. City workers bust their butts trying to serve the public that whines and complains all the time. City workers earn their salary and benefits fair and sqaure, and their retirement pensions are theirs, they're entitled to them. Just because you hate your job doens't mean you should trash city employees.

Anonymous said...

----City workers earn their salary and benefits fair and sqaure, and their retirement pensions are theirs, they're entitled to them.-----
-----------------------


just as welfare recipients are entitled ... ;-)

Anonymous said...

It's great to see City Employees taking full advantage of their newly restored Internet privileges. Thank you Art Ward!

Anonymous said...

2:49

What did you expect?

Is Artie monitoring the usage and enforcing the city policy?????

Anonymous said...

put up or shut up do an FOI to see if city employees are posting on this site

Anonymous said...

I heard that there are retirees that are getting over $75,000/year, and one even gets close to $100,000/year.

Can anyone verify that?

Anonymous said...

Those numbers are correct.

Anonymous said...

yes one over one hundred thousand a non union guy maybe a couple three over 75

Anonymous said...

Since Ward said he would monitor the use of the Internet, why doesn't he produce a report???

Anonymous said...

ASK FOR ONE. NO GUTS JUST LIP

Anonymous said...

Ward volunteered the monitoring process: why doesn't he follow through on his committments?

Anonymous said...

Art Ward sounds like George Bush when he said he would fire anyone involved in the Valerie Plame Wilson leak.

I wonder how many hours of City time have been spent by City workers doing Christmas shopping online while at work.