Report Inappropriate Comments

Here's what I remember the actuarial firm saying last spring at the city council meeting:

Fire 1 is a disaster. The actual payments being made by the city barely keep up with outflow to pensioned members and surviving spouses. The problem is in the assumed yield of the investment vs. the actual yield. GASB requires a 5.5% assumption, not the 8% built into the "40 year workout." In any case, the pension is so mature that a presumed rate of return is rather academic. The real rate of return is an extremely important consideration in the Fire 1 pension. It is barely keeping up with the outflow. That is where the rubber meets the road.

I believe that this discussion was captured on the city's recording machine. It would make sense to review that tape before jumping to the conclusion that the city has no pension problem.

From: City pension plans in spotlight

Please explain the inappropriate content below.