Comments on: Contra Costa pension costs to climb 77 percent or more

By: BGR

BGR — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 00:19:46 +0000

Don’t forget CalPERS, they will need an additional $300M by 2011.

http://www.publicceo.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=925:calpers-piece-of-budget-woes-gaining-attention&catid=151:local-governments-publicceo-exclusive&Itemid=20

By: Anna

Anna — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 03:39:53 +0000

This is sick news. Will there ever be a fix? I’m beginning to think the masses are sheep going baaa baaa.

By: BGR

BGR — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 03:28:40 +0000

See attachment at

http://64.166.146.155/docs/2009/BOS/20091201_92/3140%5FAttachment%20to%20Resolution%20No%2E%202009%2D534%2Epdf

Here’s the Resolution for consideration. BOS does not think in terms of dollar costs (obviously)

http://64.166.146.155/docs/2009/BOS/20091201_92/3140%5FBO%5FEMPLOYEE%20RETIREMENT%20PLAN%20CONTRIBUTION%20RATES%20FOR%20FISCAL%20YEAR%202010%2D2011%2Epdf

By: Poor Richard

Poor Richard — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 03:23:25 +0000

1. The BOS is responsible for the pension fund shortage because they increased the pensions in 2001-02. Furthermore, they made them retroactive, so the immediate retirees received the higher pensions but had never contributed at the higher rate.

2. The BOS does not set the anticipated pension earning rate of 7.8%. The BOS appoints four of the nine members of the Retirement Board. The Retirement Board sets the anticipated earnings rate annually after considering or ignoring the opinion of their Acturary.

3. When the rate of earnings is higher, then the contributions by the Employer (County or other member) and the employee are lower. If the pension fund is too low, only the employer (taxpayer) is required to make up the shortage.

By: Edi Birsan

Edi Birsan — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 01:46:45 +0000

Putting dollars to it and the total budget and the time time would help to clarify things.