NYS Budget Proposal (affecting NYPD/FDNY)

[INIT915 1,119]

Part DD - Authorize a new tier of pension benefits for newly hired New

York City uniformed employees, submitted at the request of the Mayor

Purpose:

This bill is advanced at the request of the Mayor of the City of New

York, and will not be acted upon without a Home Rule message from the

New York City Council. It would amend the Retirement and Social Securi-

ty Law and the New York City Administrative Code to establish a modified

pension plan for certain members of the New York City uniformed forces

who become pension plan members after the enactment of the bill. The

bill would apply to future New York City police officers, firefighters,

uniformed correction officers and uniformed sanitation members.

Statement in Support, Summary of Provisions, Existing Law, and Prior

Legislative History:

The revised pension plan proposed in this bill will provide for greater

employee contributions to the retirement system, while ensuring a valu-

able retirement benefit for new employees affected by this bill. It will

also establish pension benefit uniformity among new employees in the New

York City Uniformed Services. This will reduce future costs to taxpay-

ers, ensure the future stability of the retirement fund, and with other

comparable systems around the country.

The current retirement benefits for New York City Uniformed Services

(Police and Fire, Corrections and Sanitation) are provided at 20 years

of service regardless of the age of the employee. The current benefit

structure results in the loss of many talented uniformed service employ-

ees at a young age. Under the proposed tier, uniform services would

receive the full benefit after 25 years of service rather than 20, at a

minimum retirement age of 50, and would be vested after 10 years of

service rather than 5, thereby ensuring longer service of these essen-

tial employees.

The costs of the current plan retirement benefit are significant, and

have grown rapidly over the past decade. This proposal would continue to

ensure a valuable pension benefit for future employees, while balancing

New York City`s ability to pay. Requiring members to make contributions

for the first 25 years of their service while basing their benefit on a

three-year final average salary ensure that new employees will provide

sound financial underpinnings for their future benefits. These changes

are consistent with the types of plans offered in other large states and

cities across the nation.

In general, New York City uniformed force members currently may retire

after 20 years of service without regard to age, with an unreduced

retirement allowance of 50% of salary for the first 20 years of service.

Police, fire and uniformed correction retirees receive an additional

benefit of 1/60th of salary for each year of service after the first 20

years, while uniformed sanitation retirees receive an additional 1.5% of

salary for each year of service after the first 20 years. Police and

fire members who retire for service after at least 20 years of service

also receive a City-guaranteed non-pension variable supplements fund

(VSF) benefit equal to $12,000 per year. Uniformed correction service

retirees currently have a non-guaranteed VSF benefit which is paid only

in those years when there is a sufficient amount in the VSF fund to pay

each eligible retiree the full amount of the $12,000 annual benefit.

Under the bill, future New York City uniformed force members would need

to be at least 50 years of age and have 25 years of uniformed force

service in order to retire for service with immediate payability of an

unreduced retirement allowance equal to 2% of salary for each year of

credited service. The early service retirement provisions of the bill

would permit members to retire after 20 years of service without regard

to age, and receive immediate payability of a reduced retirement allow-

ance which would be based on that same formula, but which would be

reduced by 5% for each year that the member`s retirement precedes the

age 50 and 25-year point. The bill would eliminate the one-year final

average salary for future police and fire members, and provide for a

three-year final average salary for all future uniformed force members.

The bill also would make future uniformed force members ineligible for

VSF benefits, and the permanent cost of living allowance enacted by

Chapter 125 of the Laws of 2000.

[Guest alsfirefighter]

That's BS and I hope the state doesn't get the same notion. Just because I was driven to get hired at a young age and could retire prior to 50, I shouldn't be punished for that. The vestment part, I think that should be amended to ensure families would get appropriate benefits in the event of death if they push it to 10 years. I've rarely seen anyone take a flat 20 and retire yet, although the trend with my generation and the younger ones are to look at that option.

[helicopper 1,050]

My information may be a little bit off so if anyone has credible sources on the subject, please jump in here!

I was under the impression that the reason police and fire had a 20 year retirement was because of the health impact all the shift work and stress had on you. I also thought that DOC and Sanitation had 25/55 retirements but I guess the "parity" in NYC brought them all to 20 years - I won't even touch that one.

If they now increase the retirement age and number of years required to be eligible I hope they're prepared for many more cardiac related disabilities and other now line of duty retirements because they're forcing people to stay longer.

Now, given the recruitment problems that the NYPD already faces, how much worse is it going to get if you can get hired at 22 but can't collect your pension for 33 years?

[Goose 188]

My information may be a little bit off so if anyone has credible sources on the subject, please jump in here!

I was under the impression that the reason police and fire had a 20 year retirement was because of the health impact all the shift work and stress had on you. I also thought that DOC and Sanitation had 25/55 retirements but I guess the "parity" in NYC brought them all to 20 years - I won't even touch that one.

If they now increase the retirement age and number of years required to be eligible I hope they're prepared for many more cardiac related disabilities and other now line of duty retirements because they're forcing people to stay longer.

Now, given the recruitment problems that the NYPD already faces, how much worse is it going to get if you can get hired at 22 but can't collect your pension for 33 years?

Scary stuff. What's even scarier is that they have essentially put off hiring for an entire year, with a 95% and clear record i won't be looking at a canvas letter until 2010.

[helicopper 1,050]

As long as the subject has come up, what does everyone think about establishing maximum age limits for the PD and FD to protect us from further attacks like the one Bloomberg is proposing? I mean should the average 62 year old be chasing a 17 perp or hauling hose up four flights of stairs?

[helicopper 1,050]

Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.

-P.J. O'Rourke, Civil Libertarian

[ex-commish 490]

That's BS and I hope the state doesn't get the same notion. Just because I was driven to get hired at a young age and could retire prior to 50, I shouldn't be punished for that. The vestment part, I think that should be amended to ensure families would get appropriate benefits in the event of death if they push it to 10 years. I've rarely seen anyone take a flat 20 and retire yet, although the trend with my generation and the younger ones are to look at that option.

I believe Patterson is proposing a tier 5 which has significant changes. I also believe he wants to raise the retirment for pd/fd to 25 years as well and not being able to collect untill 50.

[ny10570 745]

This would be a new tier. Anyone on the job now would still be 20 and out, vested after 5, etc. I agree with vested after 10. I can even swallow paying in longer. adding both 55 y/o and 25 years is ridiculous. Had the city and state properly funded the pension system when the economy was booming they wouldn't be in this position. For us to pay for their mismanagement is criminal.

[gamewell45 258]

That's BS and I hope the state doesn't get the same notion. Just because I was driven to get hired at a young age and could retire prior to 50, I shouldn't be punished for that. The vestment part, I think that should be amended to ensure families would get appropriate benefits in the event of death if they push it to 10 years. I've rarely seen anyone take a flat 20 and retire yet, although the trend with my generation and the younger ones are to look at that option.

While I concur with you, I doubt your going to get much sympathy from the the public, many of whom must work until they turn 60-65 years of age before they can retire; keep their benefits and collect their pensions (for those lucky enough to have company provided pensions). It all comes down to taxpayer dollars of which there appears to be an acute shortage of in the state and local municipalities given the current financial situation of the country.

[Goose 188]

While I concur with you, I doubt your going to get much sympathy from the the public, many of whom must work until they turn 60-65 years of age before they can retire; keep their benefits and collect their pensions (for those lucky enough to have company provided pensions). It all comes down to taxpayer dollars of which there appears to be an acute shortage of in the state and local municipalities given the current financial situation of the country.

I would venture to say there is no shortage of tax payer monies, the issue is our lovely government representatives have failed to show any fiscal responsibility.

[Monty 35]

This would be a new tier. Anyone on the job now would still be 20 and out, vested after 5, etc. I agree with vested after 10. I can even swallow paying in longer. adding both 55 y/o and 25 years is ridiculous. Had the city and state properly funded the pension system when the economy was booming they wouldn't be in this position. For us to pay for their mismanagement is criminal.

One thing that has changed over the last 10, 15, 20 years or whatever I'm sure is that the average age of death has increased, certainly health care costs have risen in general, combined with the time that people are living longer, its not surprising that this subject is being reviewed.

As has been stated, before anyone in the system keeps the same terms - this applies to new hires, who should know what they are getting themselves into.

I forget the exact details, but there were stories about GM and retiree benefits that 25% or some significant amount of each car goes to retiree benefits. They are actually looking at getting their benefits modified.

There are very few private corporations now that give pensions that allow people to collect after 20 years and in their 40's - and I do know people in this situation (My only grudge is that I wish in my 20's I went in this direction .....).

On another note, being nearly 40 - I do wonder if I took a career position how I'd be fairing in my 60's as a front line FF. Although, there are other positions like Driver, Fire Prevention, Investigation that are physically less demanding that might be more appropriate for someone of that age.

Monty.

[16fire5 693]

I've heard it 100 times and it is so true. Although experience is key. "It's a young mans job". Last time I checked the roofman with bunker gear, SCBA, and assigned tools is over 100 pounds and thats not bringing the saw. Heart attacks are our leading killer this will undoubtly lead to further LOD injuries and deaths. Its funny how these terrible economic times can be used to acomplish what the city has been interested in doing for a while. I would think this needs to be negotiated but I'm not holding my breath. As for the tiers fire and police are on tier 2 right now, but my wife is a teacher and they are tier 4 so any talk of tier 5 would be reforms to those pension systems (teachers, local gov. workers)

[ny10570 745]

Who here would be willing to give up a little on their current pension to protect the young? Maybe vesting after 10 or contributions for 20 years?

[grumpyff 1,159]

Part ofthe 25/55 pension I believe is to bring NYC into line with the IRS. There has been some discussions about the IRS investigating public pension funds, and setting a nationwide standard, similar to most retirement pensions that require an age of 62 to 65 years. look here at this website: http://www.napo.org/legislative-update/IRS...formation08.htm