Relates to the optional retirement of members employed as an emergency medical technician, critical care technician, advanced emergency medical technician, paramedic or supervisor
This bill would create a new optional retirement benefit for certain emergency medical personnel employed by participating fire districts in New York State, including emergency medical technicians, critical care technicians, advanced emergency medical technicians, paramedics, and supervisors of those titles. Eligible members could retire after 25 years of total creditable service, regardless of age, if their fire district elects to offer the benefit. The bill sets the retirement allowance at one-half of final average salary, with an additional one-sixtieth of final average salary for each year of service beyond 25 years, capped at 75% of final average salary.
The bill also defines what counts as creditable service for this purpose, including service in the covered EMS titles and, in some cases, prior paid firefighter or fire officer service. It allows members who are already covered under Article 14 to make an irrevocable election within one year to switch to the new 25-year plan if their employer adopts it. The measure applies only where a participating fire district adopts a resolution and files it with the comptroller, and the district must pay the full cost of the benefit, including past service costs and administrative expenses.
The bill amends the Retirement and Social Security Law by adding a new section 89-tt and conforming related provisions in sections 445, 603, and 604 to include this new retirement category alongside existing special retirement groups. It expands the list of public safety and emergency service employees who may retire without regard to age after a specified service period, but only for participating fire districts that opt in. The fiscal note indicates the employer contribution rate would rise and that electing districts would also owe a one-time past service cost, shifting the financial burden to the local fire district rather than the state retirement system generally.
The available record suggests the bill is generally supportive of EMS workforce retirement benefits, with the proposal framed as an optional enhancement for participating fire districts rather than a mandatory statewide mandate. There are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided materials, so there is no direct evidence of opposition or amendment debate. The fiscal note, however, signals that the proposal has a meaningful cost impact, which is likely to be a central consideration for local employers and budget-conscious lawmakers.
The main point of contention is likely cost: the bill requires each participating fire district to pay both ongoing higher contribution rates and the full past service cost associated with the enhanced benefit. Another potential issue is scope, since the benefit is limited to districts that choose to adopt it and excludes members in cities with populations of one million or more, which may raise questions about equity and uniformity. There may also be administrative and actuarial concerns about determining eligible rosters, calculating costs, and managing the one-year irrevocable election for members already covered under Article 14.