Costs of police, firefighters go far beyond wages

BARSTOW — The real costs of a police officer or a firefighter go far beyond wages.

In its plan for spending the proceeds of a proposed sales tax increase to hire additional police and firefighters, the Barstow Police Department and Barstow Fire Protection District laid out costs that average upwards of about $100,000 a year for a firefighter and more than $135,000 a year for a police officer.

Those costs go considerably above the base salary of a new firefighter, which is about $47,537, and a police officer, at about $58,968. Added to the base pay is incentive pay for qualifications like paramedic certification, bilingual abilities, holiday and sick pay, and additional pay mandated by federal law for firefighters who work hours over their already-long work weeks. Benefits and the agencies’ contributions to retirement funds make up most of the rest.

The annual cost of retirement benefits — including the employers’ contribution and the portion of the employees’ contribution that employers pick up as an added benefit — amounts to about $23,738 per firefighter/paramedic. The city pays an annual average of $24,094 in retirement benefits per officer, according to numbers provided by the city and fire district.

The costs of public safety personnel have increased considerably in the past 10 years. The total amount paid in salaries increased by a total of 30 percent in the fire district between 1998 and 2008. The average salary for a mid-range police officer increased by about 50 percent from 1999 to 2008. The amount contributed to retirement funds increased by 115.74 percent in the fire district, and 176.7 percent per police officer.

Both agencies allow personnel to retire at age 50 and collect a percentage of their highest level of base pay for the fire district — or the average of the top three years of pay for a police officer — equal to three percent times their years of service. An officer or firefighter who retires at 50 with 25 years of service would be eligible to collect 75 percent of his or her highest rate of pay after retirement.

Edd Fong, a spokesperson with the California Public Employees Retirement System, which handles the city’s retirement benefits, said the “3 percent at 50” formula is fairly common for police and firefighters throughout California. Public safety personnel tend to get more generous benefits because of the physical demands and dangerous nature of their job. They also typically do not draw Social Security payments, he said.
The 3 percent at 50 formula is the most generous retirement plan allowed under state law for public safety workers. Until 1999, when the law changed, the limit was 2 percent at 50 for highway patrol officers and 2.5 percent at 55 for other officers and firefighters.

Dr. Keith Richman, a former state Assemblyman and president of the California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility, believes the current structure of public employee retirement funds is unsustainable, creating a system in which cities are paying for two parallel workforces, one working and one retired. Richman said that public safety employees should return to a 2- or 2.5-percent at 55 formula for retirement, while other government employees should get about 1.5 percent, retiring at 65.

“These local taxes are being used to cover the cost of pension benefits,” he said. “... Reforming the retirement system would enable cities and counties to pay much more for public safety, parks and recreation, libraries, and other issues that are important to the residents now.”

Fire Chief Darrell Jauss noted that many firefighters are put out of commission by work-related injuries before they reach retirement age. He and city spokesman John Rader both said the current wage and benefit structures, including retirement, are necessary to compete with neighboring agencies in attracting and keeping qualified personnel. Currently, personnel in the Barstow fire district have a lower base wage than firefighters with the San Bernardino County Fire Department, while their benefit packages are comparable, Jauss said.

“The retirement plan is one of the things that keep our highly qualified firefighters here, rather than leaving us for higher pay,” he said.

Likewise, Rader said the city is trying to avoid being merely a training ground for promising officers who would eventually leave for a better-paying job.

“The city’s position is that we are competitive in both salary and benefits with our sworn officers, so we can both attract and retain our officers,” he said.

Jauss said the increases in wages and benefits at the fire district came partially through negotiated increases and partly due to increases in the cost of living, as well as the hiring of three new firefighters in 2006. A previous fire district board of directors instituted a seven-year pay freeze in the 1990s, and when the freeze ended, wages saw a significant increase, he said.

One of the largest recent increases in the police personnel expenses came with a 2005 negotiated increase in retirement benefits, from 2 percent at 50 to the 3 percent at 50 formula, which took effect retroactively in July 2004, and amounted to a 22.19 percent increase in costs for the city, Rader said. The second large increase was a 25 percent raise that took effect in 2006.

The sales tax proposal that will go before voters in November would generate a projected $29.49 million for police and fire protection over a five-year period. In addition to the added personnel, the agencies plan to buy new equipment, including adding a paramedic squad at the fire district and a canine unit at the police department.

Contact the writer:
(760) 256-4123 or abby_sewell@link.freedom.com