Poison Pensions
This is a topic that really scares me away from running from council. It is something I know little about and understand even less. The way I see it, the mistake was made years if not decades ago by not funding the pensions. Those early investments weren't there to draw interest to pay for the retirees today. Pension spikes were obviously a mistake.
Knowing how we got into this mess is important so we don’t make the same mistakes. But I’m going to try to avoid laying blame as that is in the past. What I would like to concentrate on is how to get out of this mess. I want to look ahead, not back.
Schilling says personnel cuts are the only way to handle this, but Bart Owen says the unions want to offer ways to raise revenue. How can the fire department raise revenues? Is there any other way then to go full time into the ambulance business? I discussed this with John Inyart this other day.
Charleston’s pensions are in much better shape then Mattoon’s. John cited three main reasons.
1. Smaller force. Charleston only has 30 firefighters to Mattoon’s 38. This would defiantly work towards Schilling’s argument.
2. No insurance benefits for retirees. Mattoon recently implemented the same policy, but those already receiving will still get it. We will just have to work through this.
3. Increased revenue. John cited it cost Charleston about $3 million per year to run their fire department. But they bill out $2 million in ambulance fees, leaving them a net $1 million cost. He said Mattoon FD costs us $4 million per year. That is a difference of $3 million between two similar sizes cities in the same county. (These are numbers off the top of his head; I have no idea how accurate they are). This would work towards Bart’s argument.
Charleston also only maintains two stations to Mattoon’s three.
This may be the best argument against TIF districts I’ve heard. TIF prevents those property taxes from being used to pay necessary bills. But it can also guarantee other things will be funded besides pensions. If we are only paying for pensions we will some day look back on 2004 as “the good times”
Back to the pensions; other than the ambulance service, how can the city raise revenues to pay for the fire department? One place I know that would help some is to charge the City of Charleston for covering a portion of their city with fire protection. There is no reason Mattoon tax payers should be on the hook for Charleston’s fire protection. Fire Station 2 needs to be brought back into town. How is the airport the most strategic location? Can we eliminate a station? Can the city be covered by strategically placing two stations?
Knowing how we got into this mess is important so we don’t make the same mistakes. But I’m going to try to avoid laying blame as that is in the past. What I would like to concentrate on is how to get out of this mess. I want to look ahead, not back.
Schilling says personnel cuts are the only way to handle this, but Bart Owen says the unions want to offer ways to raise revenue. How can the fire department raise revenues? Is there any other way then to go full time into the ambulance business? I discussed this with John Inyart this other day.
Charleston’s pensions are in much better shape then Mattoon’s. John cited three main reasons.
1. Smaller force. Charleston only has 30 firefighters to Mattoon’s 38. This would defiantly work towards Schilling’s argument.
2. No insurance benefits for retirees. Mattoon recently implemented the same policy, but those already receiving will still get it. We will just have to work through this.
3. Increased revenue. John cited it cost Charleston about $3 million per year to run their fire department. But they bill out $2 million in ambulance fees, leaving them a net $1 million cost. He said Mattoon FD costs us $4 million per year. That is a difference of $3 million between two similar sizes cities in the same county. (These are numbers off the top of his head; I have no idea how accurate they are). This would work towards Bart’s argument.
Charleston also only maintains two stations to Mattoon’s three.
This may be the best argument against TIF districts I’ve heard. TIF prevents those property taxes from being used to pay necessary bills. But it can also guarantee other things will be funded besides pensions. If we are only paying for pensions we will some day look back on 2004 as “the good times”
Back to the pensions; other than the ambulance service, how can the city raise revenues to pay for the fire department? One place I know that would help some is to charge the City of Charleston for covering a portion of their city with fire protection. There is no reason Mattoon tax payers should be on the hook for Charleston’s fire protection. Fire Station 2 needs to be brought back into town. How is the airport the most strategic location? Can we eliminate a station? Can the city be covered by strategically placing two stations?
posted by Unknown | 7:57 PM
|
0 Comments
