ShareThis Page

State oversight committee chair leery of Peduto pension plan

Bob Bauder
| Wednesday, Nov. 27, 2013, 9:12 a.m.

Mayor-elect Bill Peduto's offer of early retirement to 136 employees, costing the city up to $2 million a year in increased pension costs, could put the administration on the wrong side of Pittsburgh's financial overseers, officials said Tuesday.

The city's fiscal recovery plan bans enhancements to employee pensions. Oversight chairman Nick Varischetti called it “100 percent” binding, though he wouldn't commit to a stance on Peduto's proposal until he has more information.

“We're very much aware that that could be a potential issue, but until we have the data, we can't make any determination,” said Varischetti, chair of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority.

A top Peduto official said the proposal abides by the spirit of the recovery plan. Kevin Acklin, who will serve as Peduto's chief of staff, promised the administration is prepared to satisfy all the overseers' concerns before taking power on Jan. 6.

The mayor-elect will guarantee that his proposal will not increase the city's 2014 budget. He aims to eliminate and combine positions to offset costs.

“We're going to put that into the legislation,” Acklin said. “It will be law.”

Peduto wants to make room for personnel he is recruiting. The $2 million-a-year tab for 10 years assumes all 136 eligible non-union employees participate, though Peduto expects only 50 to 60 to do so.

The city must trim costs because revenues are declining. An agreement by which nonprofits contribute about $2.6 million to the city annually in lieu of taxes expires this year, and real estate tax collections are falling because of the countywide reassessment.

About 40 percent of city real estate is owned by tax-exempt entities, about 20 percent of which is owned by nonprofits, Controller Michael Lamb estimated.

Peduto hopes to strike a long-term agreement with nonprofits that could generate up to $20 million annually, according to City Council budget office projections.

“What we're asking for is what would be fair,” Peduto said. “We're not asking for anything that would be outlandish. It's not going to happen quickly, and it does require a partnership and it's going to take a lot of work, but it's doable.”

Nonprofit representatives aren't so sure. They're reluctant to bargain given Pittsburgh's improved financial condition, according to Reynolds Clark, who chairs the advisory board for the Pittsburgh Public Service Fund, which represents nonprofits in negotiating annual contributions.

He noted the city has gone from chronic budget deficits to annual surpluses, has paid down debt and stabilized its employee pension funds.

“I think the sentiment is that the need for the fund has come and gone,” Clark said.

Peduto said he's confident nonprofits will come around because it's the right thing to do. Pittsburgh provides nonprofits and their employees with critical services.

Peduto said he has a good relationship with the nonprofit community, and he sees that as the tipping point.

“I have 19 years of experience working with these different agencies,” he said. “The difference is I can disagree with the lead administrators at these institutions and still be able to call them in the morning. There is a personal bond that has been built and a desire to resolve these issues from both sides.”

Bob Bauder is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-765-2312 or

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.

click me