Pittsburgh's pension system exceeds expectations in 2012
Pittsburgh's employee pension funds posted a positive return for the first time since at least 2008, earning 14.3 percent on investments last year, city officials said on Thursday.
The city had projected a 12 percent return, following losses of 5.5 percent in 2011 and 5.6 percent in 2010.
“As you know, we've struggled with these funds,” said Public Safety Director Mike Huss, who chairs the city's Comprehensive Municipal Pension Trust Fund Board. “It's great news, but the market fluctuates. This is an uptick.”
The funds cover about 5,000 current and retired police officers, firefighters and municipal employees. They paid out $87.3 million last year and took in $114.9 million through city and employee contributions and $45.1 million in investment earnings.
The funds still have a nearly $400 million shortfall, with assets of $604.7 million and liabilities of about $1 billion at year's end.
In 2010, the city avoided a state takeover of the pension system by committing $735 million in parking tax revenue to it to increase funding to above the 50 percent threshold the state requires.
Controller Michael Lamb, a pension board member, said the city overestimates pension fund interest earnings in its projections.
Finance Director Scott Kunka said earnings justified the rosy outlook for 2012.
“While we had one very good year, that's not typical,” Lamb said.
Bob Bauder is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-765-2312 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com 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 â 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.