The 393 city retirees who hoped to secure cost-of-living hikes in their monthly pension checks are going to have to wait awhile.
Edward Krawiecki, Jr, the city attorney, hit the brakes on the plan this week after outside counsel determined that handing out the hikes would violate existing city law.
So instead of giving a green light to the planned increases, which would provide some retired workers as much as $4,200 extra each year, city councilors agreed to ask the Ordinance Committee to revise the statute.
At least 25 retirees showed up at Tuesday’s City Council to lend their support to the proposed increase, which has the backing of the Retirement Board, Salary Committee and others.
Mayor Art Ward apologized to them for the delay. He said the legal opinion calling for an ordinance change didn’t come in until late in the day, leaving no time to let people know the plan wouldn’t be approved this week.
Ward said that he would make sure the public knows when the matter comes before the Ordinance Committee.
There doesn’t appear to be much opposition to tapping the $565 million pension funds to provide the cost-of-living increases, which will cost about $5 million total.
If anything were to derail the proposal as it exists now, it would likely be to lower the maximum hikes or raise the minimum increase, ideas that some officials and residents have expressed.
Resident Al Cianchetti said that he favors granting cost-of-living hikes to city retirees, but not those whose pension checks total more than $40,000-a-year already.
He said there are 30 city retirees eligible for a cost-of-living increase who are raking in more than $50,000 annually, but many other pensioners whose earnings are far lower.
The proposed hikes 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, apparently in violation of city law.
What the change means is that workers who were retired before 2002 could get up to 16 percent more money each month if the council endorses the idea. More recent retirees would get less.
Twenty two of the 393 retirees affected by the proposed change would receive the $350 maximum monthly increase while five will get $10 a month more, the minimum level set by officials.
The city has no obligation to give cost-of-living hikes to city retirees. But its pension funds are so flush that it can do it without much risk of running out of money for future payments.
*******
Copyright 2007. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com
11 comments:
leave the law as is!!!!
Most COLA's are associated with public employees, large unions and Social Security recipients.
On the surface, COLA's are great; however, they are usually negotiated into various contracts. In Bristol, the Police and Fire Departments already have COLA's built into their contracts. At the time of the negotiations, Police and Fire gave something back to the city as part of the negotiating process.
The same should be true with COLA's for former city workers. Simply giving money out because it's there is poor judgment. In addition, the city will be liable for full funding of health costs in the near future, just as the city was required to fully fund the retirement fund.
Before any COLA's are given out, the health benefit fund should be funded first and then dish out the spoils of political victory.
Krawiecki/Diamantis:
Any difference?
Spoils of political victory? Sounds like a person who doesn't know what there talking about. The union employees are the ones who put the money into those pensions, there only getting a fraction of their money back. They are entitled to the money. This is not a political issue.
Re: Anonymous of 5:12 PM
You are misinformed. Back in 1978 the Chairman of the Board of Finance, Richard LaMothe believed it would be prudent to begin funding the Retirement Fund of city workers. To his credit and those who served on the BOF at the time, bit the bullet and for many years, placed taxpayer money into a Retirement Fund.
I believe the first contribution was approximately 5 million dollars. One could argue that the city budget in 1978 could have been reduced by a like amount. However, the BOF determined that the city would have an eventual liability and needed to begin now.
Over the years, the stock and bond markets have done very well and the Fund is now very flush with millions of dollars of excess cash. The same foresight needs to be directed towards the Health Retirement Fund which is under funded by 180 million dollars. Eventually, that bill will come due, possibly not for you and me, but for our children and grandchildren.
Once this fund is also fully funded from the excess of the Retirement Fund, then extend COLAs to those who need them.
To the person that says that large unions and their membership contribute to their own retirement fund is delusional.
If that were true, New Departure would still be on the hill and General Motors would not be surpassed by a foreign car maker.
Most employees will get far more back than they ever put in.
You figure out how much one would have to have put in to collect $50,000/yr for even 5 or 10 years.
What are the current employees willing to give up to have the change approved?
Or don't they care about their fellow retirees??
I wish I could have a City job with generous benefits and pensions like these people get, but I am over-qualified: I graduated from Tunxis.
Taxpayer take it in the end again .... :-(
To the person that graduated from Tunxis, you may have gotton the degree but you didn't learn a think. Your comment is not very intelligent.
Post a Comment