Town pension funds - Sept 30 2008
On June 30, the Town's pensions were funded at $60.6 million.
On September 30, the pension numbers were $52.1 million.
As far as I know, neither of those numbers are audited.
Anyway, the Retirement Board meets on Thursday at 6pm. I'm probably go to be travelling that day for work, but will make every effort to be there on time.
And for those of you who are wondering... I'm still not certain of the current liability. I learned tonight that although the assets are measured every quarter... the liability is measured only once every two years on June 30... with the most recent measurement this year. So our liability will not be measured for another 20 months or so.
Frankly though, I'm a bit perplexed as to why the liability isn't measured every quarter. I understand that "funding the pension plans" may not occur every quarter... but why the liability is measured only every two years seems odd to me. And I will see if it's possible to get that number more often.
Tim White
11 comments:
Tim:
Why are you worrying about the adequacy of the pension fund? The free spending Dems aren't concerned about anything except maintaining their majority.
Don't you realize that all that you have to do is tax more there is no limit. If the taxpayers don't like it, then they can move.
All we need is Esty at the state level, she understands that you don't have to care about where the money comes from.
If they are worrying about the balance sheet in regards to performance contracting....why would they want to report increased liabilities due to the pension? I also don't see why it isn't reported more frequently...do we really want to be hit with it in 20 more months when we are in these type of economic conditions?
Down @ 14%...not bad considering the market. it probably dropped another 6-8% between 10/01 and 10/10
10:30am
I also don't see why it isn't reported more frequently
The reason is that it's complicated to get an accurate figure. But I don't see why we can't get a ballpark figure.
In simple and the most respectful terms possible...
It seems to me there are not too many plan changing events:
1) new hire
2) new retiree
3) recently passed away former ee
4) recently passed away former ee beneficiary
Considering those criteria... it seems to me that a spreadsheet could be created using the already existing calculation framework... and we could get an unaudited ballpark figure on a more routine basis with a big benefit...
because as you say...
do we really want to be hit with it in 20 more months when we are in these type of economic conditions?
No.
Tim, again you manipulate the data to paint it in a negative light (yes, financial loss is negative), however, you are not reporting how well the individual accounts are funded. Also, do you have any information on what contributions the Town has made to mitigate future issues with the funds. The town has historically told employees that the Town contributing to funding of the individual pension plans is irrelevant as town assumes the future liability.
The town has taken no steps to ensure stability by making contributions they have chosen to "roll the Dice".
Please post accurate facts on both sides instead of trying to cause panic to push your agenda.
Control the information, control the agenda ---- sound familiar??
funding of the individual pension plans is irrelevant as town assumes the future liability.
Who funds the town?
you are not reporting how well the individual accounts are funded
If I understand you correctly, that's because I don't have that information. I asked for the liability numbers a couple months ago, but haven't gotten anything yet.
From my perspective, any increase/decrease in assets/liabilities and the net balance of assets/liabilities are both important.
Who funds the town? - taxpayers
However, failing to provide for the future based on a calculated risk is still a risk none the less. If 12:34 is correct the town should have been taking steps to protect its future liability.
Either way the funding would be provided by taxpayers, but prudent management would have minimized risk.
Who funds the town? - taxpayers
However, failing to provide for the future based on a calculated risk is still a risk none the less. If 12:34 is correct the town should have been taking steps to protect its future liability.
Either way the funding would be provided by taxpayers, but prudent management would have minimized risk.
The town government has been living beyond its means and far beyond the means of the taxpayers.
Not to worry we will just build another drug store to increase our grand list.
Post a Comment