the retiree raise

Well it will be interesting what the final tab is going to cost tax payers as to the retirement program. They voted a straight across the board increase to pensions of 200 a month unless you earned 1000 then you went to 1300. This said what is important to note that those funds could go to any use what so ever. So if the issue was really health care why wouldnt we focus all the choices into health. I find it ridiculous that some retirees make over 60,000 a year retired and then we add to this amount. This community is comprised in excess of 50,000 people the retiree pool in question is approximately 200 people.

The intent at city commission was to take "care of the bottom" a quote used by one of the retirees, but in the end the futhered the gap from top to bottom. To further reward people making over double what the average in battle creek make while they sit at home is an outrage not only to the taxpayers at large but the other retirees. The retirees who are in the 1000-2000 dollar range a month they are the ones that the help should have gone out to.

The health plan also needs to not be so lucrative, i mean if you retiree with 20 years in and full benefits you could in essence "retire" at age 38. That said many of the people in the pool work second jobs or i should say start second careers but alas many opt out of the new careers health plan because battle creeks is too good. Better solution is to take care of the "bottom" and create a lesser plan that would create excess cash by being lesser and working with a hardship pool when needed, or buy allowing retirees to ala carte to build a bigger plan. Facts are that for the most part most of us do not use all or any of the benefits of a health plan, but rest assured the premiums charged are as if you do.

The committee that is being formulated is a good idea, bad idea, by having a five member board with two retirees, one active and one citizen and one commissioner is not wise, a board of unrelated people who do not have an interest other than general welfare are the people who should be selected, what this process has shown us over several months that there could be no consensus and there was an willingness to make changes that were needed. That would be the same in hardship evaluation and by having those closest to there friends, co workers, and such is a formula for potential abuse.

_