Regina's pension problem still not solved - Action News
Home WebMail Wednesday, November 27, 2024, 07:23 AM | Calgary | -14.5°C | Regions Advertise Login | Our platform is in maintenance mode. Some URLs may not be available. |
Saskatchewan

Regina's pension problem still not solved

The city of Regina's massive pension plan funding shortfall, estimated at over $200 million, remains unsolved following another meeting of council members.

Thecity of Regina's massive pension plan funding shortfall, estimated at over $200 million, remains unsolved following another meeting of council members.

City employees have been pressing council to increase contributions to the plan, to meet funding requirements.

On Tuesday, however, city council opted to leave contribution rates as they are and continue to seek another solution to the pension problem.

"We're encouraged," Regina Mayor Pat Fiacco said Tuesday, "that all the groups that presented said they want to get back to the table and work on a plan that I think will be beneficial to all the stakeholders."

Fiacco said increasing contributions to the pension fund would represent a "tremendous financial burden" to taxpayers and current city employees.

"If you're an employee, it's a double hit," Fiacco pointed out, as workers would see an increase in property taxes to pay for an increase in the contribution rate, and a decrease in their take-home pay.

According to a report prepared by the city's administration, the average civic employee would have to pay an additional $1,749 per year in their pension contribution to address the funding shortfall. That would bring the annual contribution, for an employee making $55,000 per year, to $7,317.

The report also said the city would have to raise taxes by 2.72 per cent, to meet the employer's contribution obligation.

"I think that what we have before us is an opportunity to fix a plan that should have been fixed a long time ago," he added.

Fiacco said a resolution could be months away.

The administration's report on the funding issue said the plan fell into a deficit because it was continually being improved, but funding to pay for the enhanced benefits was never put in place.