Translate[Archived] Question #35: What is the budgetary impact of including Fire Marshals and Medics in the VRS Hazard Retirement Plan?
Question:
What is the budgetary impact of including Fire Marshals and Medics in the VRS Hazard Retirement Plan? (Mayor Wilson)
Response:
First, there is currently no legislation that would allow us to adopt enhanced scenario #1 for this group, which consists of about 45 participants, and we would need to petition the General Assembly to make changes to the code to implement this benefit. It should be noted that the plan for the Sheriff’s Deputies is to place them in Scenario #1.
Second, there are two improved potential benefit scenarios in VRS for the fire marshals and medics in VRS. The details of each scenario and the current benefits are summarized in the chart below.
Based on an estimate from VRS’ actuary, enhancing the retirement eligibility without including the hazardous duty supplement, scenario #1, would cost approximately $0.5 million. Since there is currently no legislation that would allow us to adopt this benefit for this group, which consists of about 45 participants, we would need to petition the General Assembly to make changes to the State Code to be able to consider implementing this benefit.
The cost impact for enhancing the retirement eligibility and including the hazardous duty supplement, scenario #2, is not known at this time. Staff has contacted VRS and has begun discussions with their actuary to request the cost of these benefits. Cost studies from VRS take a number of months, up to 6 months, to complete. Legislation does currently exist that would allow us to adopt this benefit for this group. A review of City Supplemental Retirement System benefits if scenario #2 was adopted will need to occur, as will consideration of either of the VRS Hazardous Duty Plans as an incentive for single role medics to retire earlier so the shift to dual role fire fighter/medics could possibly be accelerated.