Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Retirement System topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Retirement board proposes modest employee contribution increase and new-hire changes; aldermen seek union clarity
Summary
The Manchester Employees Contributory Retirement System trustees asked the Board to support legislative changes including a 0.5% raise in employee pension contributions (from 5% to 5.5%) and benefit-structure changes for hires after July 1, 2026; aldermen pressed on union outreach, recruitment risks and who bears long-term costs.
The trustees of the Manchester Employees Contributory Retirement System presented proposed legislative changes the city should take to the 2025 New Hampshire Legislature, asking the Board of Mayor & Aldermen for a show of support.
Richard Molen, chair of the trustees, said the package aims to preserve long-term stability of the contributory system as the number of employees participating has fallen. The trustees proposed a 0.5 percentage-point increase in employee contributions (from 5% to 5.5%), which trustees estimated would generate about $2.4 million annually. They also proposed that employees hired on or after July 1, 2026, have a higher retirement age (62 instead of 60), a longer final-average-earnings period (five years rather than three) and a 10-year vesting requirement instead of five.
Trustees emphasized that current members would continue to receive existing benefits (other than the 0.5% contribution increase) and that many of the larger benefit changes would apply only to new hires. Several aldermen said they were concerned about recruitment and retention risks in a tight labor market and asked whether unions had been adequately consulted. Trustee representatives said they had invited unions and engaged with some representatives, and two employee-elected trustees who attended (Matt Ceeshan and Mike Carpenter) told the Board that unions who participated came to understand the proposed reforms.
Alderman Sapienza and others pressed the trustees on fairness, asking why the city would not increase its own contribution to share the burden. Trustees and chairs answered that the city already contributes a larger percentage of payroll (noted during discussion at about 32.98%) and that the package is designed to reduce employer normal cost growth over time while preserving benefits for those already vested.
By the end of the presentation trustees requested the Board's support to carry the package to the legislature; the Board registered a consensus in favor with two recorded oppositions during the show-of-hands consensus call.
