Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Vrs Hazardous Duty topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors discuss raising VRS service multiplier for hazardous‑duty staff to retain public‑safety employees
Summary
County staff proposed raising the Virginia Retirement System (VRS) hazardous-duty service multiplier from 1.7 to 1.85 for eligible law enforcement, firefighters and EMTs, estimating roughly $2,200 more annual retirement income for a $60,000 final‑average salary; staff said the change would affect about 24 employees and still keep employer contribution below a previously budgeted level.
Warren County staff presented supervisors with an analysis of Virginia Retirement System (VRS) options for hazardous-duty employees and recommended adopting the higher service multiplier available to law enforcement, firefighters and EMTs.
Staff explained that VRS classifications and multipliers determine retirement payouts and that hazardous-duty employees in Plan 1 or Plan 2 may receive a higher multiplier. Using a hypothetical example of an employee with a $60,000 final average compensation and 25 years of service, staff said moving from a 1.7 to a 1.85 multiplier would increase annual retirement pay from about $25,500 to $27,750, a difference of approximately $2,200 per year.
County staff also explained employer contribution-rate changes: the county’s assumed employer rate had been 11.66 percent; a revision lowered the current assumed rate to 10.48 percent, and adopting the 1.85 multiplier would increase the rate to an estimated 11.58 percent — still under the previous budgeted figure. Staff said about 24 county employees would fall under the hazardous-duty category. "We're the only locality that is still at 1.7," staff said, noting neighboring jurisdictions have adopted 1.85 and that the difference may hinder recruitment and retention.
Board members discussed broader retention options, including addressing the post-retirement “gap years” between early retirement eligibility and Medicare eligibility; staff estimated an approximate $13,000 per-employee annual cost to insure that gap. No formal action was taken at the work session; staff offered to return with more detailed fiscal figures for the board to consider.
