Re(2): Channel 10 reports on Fire & Police Fund
IP: 173.65.95.32
Posted on September 17, 2011 at 03:38:42 PM by royhall

Trying to figure out how taxpayers might be on the hook for any of this. Stretching seems the only way. Since the $1.34 city share of contributions was mentioned, could the referrence be to a make up requirement that might cause contributions to be increased? Are these costs considered losses? (exactly what we need at this time & economy). Since the contract (now good as toilet paper) uses the term "Growth" & "Interest" could this be it. (History has told me that some board members didn't/don't know the difference) The pension is certainly not "Growing" by the amount of these costs. If this is the case, then active officers should be pissed too. I like the sound of the term "Shake up."

Replies:

You must register before you can post on this board. You can register here.

Post a reply:
Username:
Password:
Email:
Subject:
Message:
bold italic underline left align right align center align url email image move quote horizontal rule

Link Name:
Link URL:
Image URL:
Check this box if you want to be notified via email when someone replies to your post.




Create Your Own Free Message Board or Free Forum!
Hosted By Boards2Go Copyright © 2020


<-- -->