ShareThis Page
Pittsburgh’s financial chief asserts health of pension system |

Pittsburgh’s financial chief asserts health of pension system

Bill Vidonic
| Thursday, May 12, 2011 12:00 a.m

Pittsburgh Controller Michael Lamb this afternoon said that the projected value of the city’s pensions is nearly $573 million, well over the amount needed to avoid a state takeover.

Lamb released a report to the city’s Comprehensive Municipal Pension Trust Fund Board that showed that between this year and 2041, the city will dedicate $735.6 million in parking taxes toward the pensions. The present-day value of that money, Lamb said, is $238 million.

However, the final arbiter on whether the state will assume control of the pension is the state’s Public Employee Retirement Commission, which won’t make a decision until this fall.

Under state law, the city had until Dec. 31 to show it had enough money to cover at least 50 percent of $1 billion in pension obligations for 8,000 retirees and employees. City officials warned a state takeover would mean the city would have to pay crippling annual pension payments topping $100 million.

Council voted on New Year’s Eve to irrevocably dedicate parking taxes to the pension for the next 30 years. It also made a one-time payment of $45 million.

A representative of the retirement commission was not immediately available for comment this afternoon.

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.