Left In Lowell

How are we going to pay for all this?

9 Responses to “How are we going to pay for all this?”

1. K-R-S Says:
   June 3rd, 2008 at 11:23 am

   Yes, Mimi, you are correct, this cost will come directly from general funds.
   Under state mandate we are obligated to fully fund these pensions at 100% by 2028.
   The liability is in the billiosn of dollars.
   However, if we start now, the pain will not be as great, were we to wait.

2. -b Says:
   June 3rd, 2008 at 5:29 pm

   At a time when pensions have all but been eliminated in the private sector the public sector is increasing them. Am I understanding this correctly? If I’m doing the math correctly, that appears to be a 33% increase.

   Why is this being done? Is there some fear that we are going to lose public employees if the COLA isn’t raised?

   I’m sure there are lots of details, but on the surface this rubs me the wrong way.

   These are the same types of issues that have caused GM so much grief. Lots of retired folks end up putting a huge strain on the system loooong after they have put into it.

   Sometimes I think if I had to do it all over again I would have just skipped college and got a job working for the MBTA or something.

3. kpem Says:
   June 3rd, 2008 at 9:31 pm

   Where’s my pension? Oh thats right I did not “know” anyone that could get me a city job. The only thing my 401K had done is drop in value. Where is my bail out?

4. K-R-S Says:
   June 4th, 2008 at 7:21 am

   Mea Culpa, I totally read another issue entirely into Mimi’s post.
   However, Mimi and I did receive some clarity on this issue. Below, is what I took from it.
   The MMA went to the State and asked to be “saved from themselves”.
   The Legislature put a 3 checks into place:
   1.) The Legislature would make this “legal”
   2.) This will be a “local option”.
   3.) Adoption of this measure would have to be approved by the local legislative bodies, but not before an audit has been performed to determine long term financial impact (sorry, totally forgot the acronym for the liability portion of it).

5. Bill Manzi Says:
   June 5th, 2008 at 7:08 am

   Respectfully K-R-S- the MMA is not asking to be “saved from themselves”. This legislation is seriously flawed in several important areas. The “local option” that you refer to only deals with the eighty five stand alone municipal systems. The 266 communities that are in county/regional systems will be bound by the determination of the regional retirement system, without the local legislative body even having a say in what could be another financial hit to local property tax payers. Additionally the “local option” in the eighty five communities has no provision for participation by the local chief executive, be it manager or mayor. That is a serious problem. Your post also incorrectly states that approval by the local legislative bodies would come after “an audit has been performed to determine long term financial impact.” That is incorrect as well. The legislation calls for an actuarial study to be done after adoption. The purpose of this study would be to allow the local retirement board to petition the state to push off further into the future the full funding of our pension systems due to the increased costs of this legislation. (We are on a schedule for full funding by 2028) If that option is taken you would be paying for a current benefit by pushing that obligation off on future retirees.(Treasurer Cahill has criticized that option as a fiscal shell game) The other option would be to assess local property tax payers additional monies now. Which option do you think local legislative bodies and retirement systems will take? That is not hard to figure out. At the local level it appears we have gone from requesting additional state aid to requesting that the state not impose, from above, additional costs to property tax payers that are already seriously overburdened.

   Bill Manzi
   Mayor
   City of Methuen

6. K-R-S Says:
   June 5th, 2008 at 7:23 am

   Respectfully, Mayor Manzi, all of what I had written, comes directly from our source of information. What I had written in my previous post is what I had taken from the conversation.
   KRS
   LiL

7. Magnolia Says:
   June 5th, 2008 at 8:28 am

   Has anyone checked out City salaries lately. Most of the regular (Not the titles) people like clerks, laborers. etc. make less than the public sector. They also are not entitled to Social Security. Many of these people make less than 20,000 a year in retirement My neighbor is even getting that much now so she is selling her house that she and her husband worked so hard to save for years ago. It is not a fancy house in a fancy neighborhood. How many of you know that the Department heads get 2 raises a year automatically and lots of perks. Whereas the people liek 1705 and SEIU have to fight for every penny. The gap gets bigger every year. I don’t begrudge the little guy a raise - I strongly object to the titles getting guaranteed raises no matter how bad things are.

8. 4Paws Says:
   June 5th, 2008 at 6:00 pm

   Magnolia: please check your source, in order to avoid disseminating incorrect information. Departments heads do NOT get 2 raises a year automatically, and they do NOT get “lots of perks” (unless you somehow consider receiving a salary based on 35 hours/week, and working an average of 50+ without any additional compensation as some form of perk)! In fact, they haven’t received a raise in almost two years, and they do not have the benefit of any collaborative bargaining unit’s protection, as they work at the will of the City Manager. Indeed, everyone is working hard to maintain the City’s services, including the Department heads.

9. waittilnextyr Says:
   June 6th, 2008 at 3:19 pm

   Based on the FY 09 budget proposal, we can look forward to requests for a schedule of rate increases in water, waste water and parking in the coming year.

   And the Arena enterprise has a disappointly low revenue projection going forward. Why?

Leave a Reply