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: