New York Assembly Bill A05879

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/24/25
• Refer: 2/24/25
• Refer: 1/7/26

Caption

Provides that for New York city police/fire members, uniformed correction/sanitation revised plan and investigator revised plan members of the New York city employees' retirement system, the service retirement benefit shall not be reduced by the primary social security retirement benefit commencing at age sixty-two.

Summary

A05879 would change how certain New York City public safety and related retirement benefits are calculated by eliminating the Social Security offset that currently reduces benefits for specified Tier 3 members. The bill applies to police/fire members of the New York City Police Pension Fund and Fire Department Pension Fund, as well as New York City Employees’ Retirement System members in the uniformed correction/sanitation revised plan and investigator revised plan. It amends the Retirement and Social Security Law to provide that these members’ normal service retirement, early service retirement, and deferred vested benefits would no longer be reduced by 50% of the primary Social Security retirement benefit beginning at age 62. The bill also makes conforming changes to the provisions governing early retirement and vested benefits, and it clarifies that the Social Security offset section would not apply to these covered members when they receive benefits under the amended retirement provisions. In addition, the bill states that any resulting change in a participating employer’s contribution rate would not be used in calculating contribution rates under the separate statutory provision governing that calculation. The act would take effect 60 days after becoming law. The fiscal note attached to the bill indicates a substantial increase in employer pension contributions, all borne by New York City. The note projects increased costs beginning in fiscal year 2027 and continuing over the long term, with the largest impacts on NYCERS and the police pension system, and smaller but still significant impacts on the fire pension system. It also estimates increases in unfunded accrued liability and additional amortization payments, reflecting the higher benefit obligations created by removing the offset. Overall sentiment in the available materials appears supportive of expanding retirement benefits for the affected public employees, as reflected by the bill’s straightforward benefit-enhancing purpose and the absence of recorded committee opposition or vote history in the provided context. At the same time, the fiscal note makes clear that the measure has a meaningful cost impact, which is the main likely policy concern. The central point of contention is the tradeoff between improving retirement security for police, fire, correction, sanitation, and investigator members versus increasing long-term pension costs for New York City and its retirement systems.

Impact

The bill would amend the Retirement and Social Security Law to exempt specified New York City police/fire, correction/sanitation revised plan, and investigator revised plan members from the statutory reduction tied to the primary Social Security retirement benefit at age 62. This would increase normal service, early service, and deferred vested pension benefits for the affected members and would likely raise employer contribution rates and unfunded liabilities for the relevant retirement systems, with the fiscal burden falling on New York City.

Sentiment

The available context suggests generally favorable sentiment toward the bill’s benefit expansion, with no recorded votes or committee transcript opposition provided. The measure appears designed to improve retirement benefits for a defined group of public safety and uniformed service employees, but the fiscal note highlights significant added costs, which is the primary policy concern associated with the bill.

Contention

The main point of contention is fiscal: eliminating the Social Security offset increases pension benefits and employer contributions, creating substantial long-term costs for New York City. Supporters would likely emphasize fairness and improved retirement security for affected members, while critics would focus on the budgetary impact, higher unfunded liabilities, and the fact that the cost is concentrated on the city rather than shared more broadly.