Baltimore City Council members will unveil another proposal tonight to try to solve one of the most contentious — and pressing — issues they face: reforming the police and fire pension system.
If they do not make major changes to the pension program in the next four weeks, the financially beleaguered city will be forced to pay $65 million on top of the $101 million that has been set aside for the plan.
Flanked by 10 city council members, Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake called the proposal "our combined best effort to guarantee a sustainable pension system" at a morning news conference.
"The city ... cannot afford the cost of the maintaining the current pension system as is," she said. "While we all agree that city employees deserve a dignified and secure retirement, it must be one the city can afford.
Rawlings-Blake said the plan, drafted by the administration and Councilwoman Helen Holton, is "fair, unavoidable and final."
A hearing on the bill has been scheduled for Thursday in front of the council's taxation and finance committee, which is chaired by Holton. Four of the five committee members have signed on as sponsors, indicating that the measure will likely speed through the committee.
Leaders of the police and firefighter unions, who view cuts to their retirement benefits as a contract violation, increased the pressure on city leaders last week when they filed a federal lawsuit contending that the city had been shortchanging the pension plan for nearly a decade.
Their suit includes a request that the court bar the city from "enacting, executing or enforcing improper and illegal legislation" that would chip away at their benefits.
Robert Cherry, president of the Fraternal Order of Police, said the city failing to meet its "moral and contractual obligations" to fire fighters and police officers. The unions, which for more than a year have been pushing their own plan for pension reform, say they are frustrated that the administration and council have not been more receptive to their plan, which they say would reduce the city's contribution to $121 million.
If the new measure is passed, lawyers for the unions will likely as a judge to issue an injunction postponing the implementation of the law, Cherry said.
Holton says the bill she plans to introduce tonight is an improvement on legislation she proposed with Councilman William H. Cole IV in April.
Holton said it represents a compromise between the unions' demands and financial exigencies.
But union leaders refuse to budge on many aspects of the retirement plan.
"There are places where our hands are tied, but we are willing to make concessions on the things we can," said Bob Sledgeski, head of the firefighters' union. "We would be no better than the city if we agreed to break our members' contracts."
Cole, who is co-sponsoring the new bill, said the legal drama would not derail efforts to reshape the pension plan before the fiscal year ends June 30 and the city's payment comes due.
"The lawsuit and everything else have complicated things, but we still have a job to do," said Cole. "I want to be able to look every man and woman in uniform in the eye and say, 'We've preserved your fund. It's affordable. The city can sustain it and we can pay your pension.' "
Cole is also introducing legislation tonight that would increase elected officials' contribution to their pension fund from 5 percent to 7 percent and increase the age at which retirees can draw full benefits from 50 to 55.
Rawlings-Blake asked Cole to research elected officials' pension plans around the region in response to concerns about former Mayor Sheila Dixon's pension. Dixon is collecting $83,000 annually after resigning in February as part of a plea bargain on criminal charges of perjury and embezzlement.
Cole said his bill aims to bring city elected officials' benefits in line with other jurisdictions. But he stressed that the elected officials' pensions cannot be compared with those of the public safety officers because city fire and police officers do not contribute to or collect Social Security.
The new fire and police pension bill would delay retirement age, but not as much as in the earlier proposal. Under the new measure, public safety officers could retire after 25 years or service or upon turning 55, as long as they have at least 15 years with the department.
Employees who already have worked 15 years would be grandfathered in under the existing retirement requirements, allowing them to collect full benefits at either age 50 or after 20 years of work.
More than 100 police officers and firefighters have threatened to leave the department if the retirement age were increased substantially. Union leaders say the hazards and physical demands in fire and police work necessitate an earlier retirement than most jobs.
