Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pensions And Benefits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council advances home-rule request to fix retirement plans for two firefighters
Summary
Binghamton City Council discussed a resolution asking the state to allow two firefighters to move into a 25-year, 1/60 retirement tier after an enrollment error; council voted 6-0 to expedite consideration of the resolution.
The Binghamton City Council on May 5 discussed a home-rule request that would allow two city firefighters to move into a 25-year, 1/60 retirement plan after they were enrolled in the wrong pension option.
The measure, discussed at the council's work session, would ask the New York State Legislature to pass authorizing legislation so the two members can change plans. David Hollerin, president of IAFF Local 729, described the item as "a correction effort" and said the two members "were put into the wrong plan." He asked the council to move the resolution forward so state lawmakers can act before the end of the legislative session in June.
Hollerin told the council the city’s collective bargaining agreement provides both a 20-year plan and a 25-year, 1/60 plan. He said paperwork and timing problems during hiring led to the two employees being placed incorrectly and that the change requires state legislation. Hollerin described payment options for the city's cost: a one-time payment or amortizing the city's share over 10 years, and said the amounts differ between the two firefighters because of differing lengths of service.
Council members asked about whether other members might have similar issues and how the city will prevent future errors. Hollerin said the union audited members' plan assignments and that the state retirement system has been urged to default new hires into the 20-year plan to prevent similar mistakes. He said the city’s recent new hires were briefed about retirement options during orientation.
Council member Kavanaugh asked for a motion to expedite consideration of the resolution. The motion to expedite passed on a roll-call vote: Council member Rathmell — aye; Council member Madovetsky — aye; Council member Hotchkiss — aye; Council member Kavanaugh — aye; Council member Middleton — aye; Council President Dunton — aye. Council member Murray was absent. The clerk recorded the vote as 6–0.
No vote on the underlying home-rule resolution was recorded at the work session; Hollerin said the measure needs state action and that timing is tight before the end of the state legislative session.
The council and union discussed how to pay the city's cost and asked staff and the union to supply bill numbers and related paperwork for the resolution so the city can reference both the senate and assembly bills when forwarding the home-rule request to state legislators.
