The slow-motion train wreck facing the pension funds of Pittsburgh and scores of other municipalities may be on the fast track toward a political collision, with local officials panning an emerging state solution.

State pension officials defended a draft plan that would force Pittsburgh and about 100 other municipalities statewide to turn their pension funds over to the state, relinquishing control of new employees' benefits and paying more each year toward future obligations.

"This is a crisis, and there's a very limited window in which we're going to be able to fix it," said James L. McAneny, executive director of the state's Public Employees Retirement Commission, which oversees local retirement funds. "If it's not done by the end of 2009, it's going to be too late to avoid the crisis that's coming in 2010," when new pension calculations reflecting stock market losses force municipalities to boost payments into their pension funds dramatically.

His plan would be mandatory for all municipalities with pension funds containing less than half of the money needed to cover payments due to current and former employees. They would fold into the Pennsylvania Municipal Retirement System, which now handles some 800 mostly small local pension plans covering 15,000 retirees.

Benefits due to current employees wouldn't change, but future employees would be locked into new rules. Police and firefighters could retire after age 50 with 20 years of service at 47.5 percent of salary, and other workers could retire at age 65 with 30 years of service at 60 percent of salary. Those who stayed longer would get larger payments.

Some municipalities would immediately have to pay the state much more than they now put into their own pension pots. Others would see their pension outlays rise over time.

Dean Ross, the city's actuary, said that under one draft the city would have to start putting $35 million more each year into pensions, while a very recent draft would push the big payments into later years.

Scott Abel, an Atlanta-based analyst with Mercer Investment Consulting, which handles the city's pension fund portfolio, called the emerging legislation "the most ridiculous chicanery that I've ever heard." Attendees at a city pension fund board meeting yesterday defended Mayor Luke Ravenstahl's approach of gradually improving the fund by making larger-than-required payments, while exploring a big infusion that could come from leasing the city's parking garages.

City leaders have long lobbied for increased state pension aid. The city's proposed new recovery plan under state Act 47 calls for increases in annual payments into the pension fund of $10 million to $14 million a year. The higher payment might be funded through an increased tax on people who work in the city.

Mr. McAneny said he didn't have the data needed to figure out what the city would have to pay the state fund under his plan. But he said the city has long used calculations that "artificially" allow it to put less into its pension fund than it should.

"The state pours money into Pittsburgh and Philadelphia and some of these other plans year after year, and the situation is not improving," he said.

As of late this month, the city's pension fund held $251.5 million, or 28 percent, of the $899 million needed to cover the benefits due to current and former employees. That's down $10 million from the end of last year, and down $185 million from a peak a decade ago.

"Hopefully, the worst is behind us," said Tony Pokora, the city's assistance finance director, noting that the fund rebounded from March lows in April and May.

Mr. McAneny said the worst may be ahead, since investment losses of the past year won't be factored into pension funding formulas until next year.

He met yesterday with Pittsburgh Finance Director Scott Kunka and Philadelphia officials and invited their suggestions. He said the state is willing to tweak its proposal, which he hopes to introduce as legislation "soon."

He anticipated opposition from cities that like to control pension consulting contracts, and unions that want to continue negotiating pension benefits locally. "Nobody at the local level wants to give up the control over the investments and all of the rest of it."

"We're opposing this, guys," said Joe King, president of the International Association of Fire Fighters Local 1, and a pension fund board member, citing potential effects on widows' pensions. He said the union would be in Harrisburg lobbying next week. "We're shutting it down."