We should all be glad that PERS didn't have a negative return for the year!  It was a volatile year in the markets and far worse could have happened.  I didn't quite understand the last sentence of the article; is there a 30% maximum increase set by law or did PERS tell the public employers that the increases in no event would exceed 30%?  Different employers are in various situations with respect to their PERS funding so the increases may not be uniform.  Honestly though, I think it is sort of sad that PERS returns and the unfunded liability's impact on public funding are going to drive most of our tax discussions for the next thirty years or so.  We can expect a continuing stream of tax proposals to put more money into school funding, law enforcement and all other public services until the last Tier 1 beneficiaries die off.  Oregon needs comprehensive tax reform to solve its future needs for public services and I favor modeling our state revenue stream on Washington's tax structure.