Needed pension reform

Editorial

An arcane state rule prevents cities from controlling local pensions' costs and taxpayers' future obligations. Lawmakers could remedy the situation with a sensible bill that gets the state out of the way.

At issue are pension agreements between cities and police and firefighters' unions. The cities levy an insurance tax to help pay for their share of the pensions.

A 1999 law requires that any tax income over what was received in 1999 must be used for "extra benefits."

The law was intended to bring uniformity to state pension benefits, but it became a prescription for disaster, forcing the cities to commit to ever-increasing obligations that would not be sustainable should the economy go south — which, of course, is what has happened.

But the mandate was typical of lawmakers, who have routinely made concessions to public safety unions without regard for the costs to local governments.

The state Division of Retirement now checks to ensure local agreements are in compliance.

House Bill 365 sponsored by Reps. Fred Costello of Flagler County and John Julien of Miami would undo that unhealthy arrangement, allowing cities to reduce benefits.

But it also includes an important safeguard for public safety workers. Such reductions can occur only when the unions agree to the concession.

It makes no sense during these tough economic times, when local governments have seen their revenues plummet, to prevent them from devising contracts that protect taxpayers and workers alike by ensuring pension costs are sustainable.

To be sure, public safety workers deserve good pensions. The jobs are dangerous and physically and mentally demanding.

We don't object to their pensions being more generous than most. And not all pensions are in trouble. Tampa's police pension, for instance, is in solid shape.

Union representatives worry language in the legislation could affect the definition of job-related injuries and also adversely affect representation on pension boards. Such concerns should be addressed. But local governments need more flexibility.

The pension bill may need some fine tuning, but cities and their unions should be free to determine what benefits are appropriate and affordable.