Push finally has come to shove in the long dispute over pensions between Mayor Francis Slay and the city's firefighters, a dispute in which both sides agree on far more issues than they disagree.
But on one point both sides strenuously disagree: Who should control the firefighters retirement system? Mr. Slay wants to dissolve the current system, which requires both the Missouri Legislature and the city's Board of Aldermen to sign off on any changes. Mr. Slay has asked the aldermen to create a new city-run system with lower benefit levels, mostly for newly hired firefighters.
Firefighters Local 73, while generally willing to consider a two-tiered pension system, doesn't want to give up its clout in the Legislature. It regards Mr. Slay's proposal as a "pension grab," an attempt to gain control of the fund's nearly $400 million in assets.
In fact, by federal law, the city cannot raid the assets of any of its three retirement systems. This simply is a local control issue; city government should have the ability to manage its budget without first getting permission from lawmakers from Kansas City, Springfield, Cabool and Peculiar.
Besides, even if the Legislature were not involved, it's not like getting pension changes through the Board of Aldermen is a slam dunk. The firefighters are a powerful force in city politics, as witness the queasiness on the board when Mr. Slay's legislation was introduced last week. Aldermanic President Lewis Reed is slow-walking the bill, and even some of Mr. Slay's staunchest allies on the board are looking for cover.
Here's something the aldermen, and the people who elect them, should consider: Pension costs are eating the city alive. Ten years ago, the city's three pension systems — one each for firefighters, police officers and other city employees — cost taxpayers $14 million. This year the city will spend $76 million on pensions. Next year it is expected to go up to $90 million.
That's money that cannot be spent elsewhere on streets, sidewalks, trash collection, picking up stray dogs and that perennial aldermanic favorite, ward-improvement projects. For that matter, it's money that can't be spent on the fire department. Layoffs were forestalled last year only with a last-minute infusion of federal Homeland Security money.
About a third of the pension money is spent on firefighters alone. On a per-capita basis, the 1,413 active and retired firefighters do far better than their colleagues in the two other pension systems.
As the Post-Dispatch's David Hunn and Jeremy Kohler reported Sunday, the reason firefighters do that well is simple: Generations of city officials, including Mr. Slay when he was an alderman, have voted for solid basic pension benefits and extraordinarily sweet add-ons for firefighters.
Mr. Slay proposes freezing some of those add-ons for current employees and eliminating them for new employees. His proposal also would tighten up rules governing disability pensions. In recent years, 48 percent of retiring firefighters have claimed disability; going out with a disability enables a firefighter to claim a pension earlier and at a higher rate.
The job, as the firefighters like to point out, is difficult and dangerous, but 48 percent is outrageous.
Local 73's president, Chris Molitor, said the union is willing to accept a lower level of benefits for new hires. The union also has proposed modifying certain disability requirements. In all, Mr. Molitor said, the changes would save the city $6.5 million a year in pension costs. "It would keep costs steady over 10 years," he said.
But the union will not accept benefit changes for current employees, he said, adding, "We were promised certain levels of benefits when we were hired. Guys planned our retirements based on those promises."
Nor is the union willing to support dissolving the current pension fund and replacing it with one run solely by the city. "We need the state Legislature to provide checks and balances," Mr. Molitor said.
The union knows that most state lawmakers don't care if city taxpayers are being hosed by pension costs. But just as it's wrong for city police to be controlled by state government, it's wrong for people in Jefferson City to be spending St. Louisans' money. State control of the fire pension dates to 1959; it's time to rectify it.
But we agree with the union that the city should keep the promises, however ill-advised they were, to current firefighters. That means keeping benefits in place for firefighters already on the job, but tightening up rules to make sure disability provisions aren't abused. Somewhere in there is room for compromise.
