New York Assembly Bill A06911

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/18/25
• Refer: 3/18/25
• Refer: 1/7/26

Caption

Authorizes an optional twenty-five year retirement plan for fire marshals I and supervisors of such title in Suffolk county.

Impact

The implications of A06911 on state laws revolve around employee retirement benefits, particularly for public safety personnel in Suffolk County. Implementing this retirement plan could enhance job appeal for fire marshals, thereby potentially improving emergency response and fire safety across the county. Additionally, it reflects a broader recognition of the demanding nature of fire service careers, acknowledging that allowing earlier retirement can be beneficial both for the workforce and the community they serve.

Summary

A06911 is a bill proposed in New York that authorizes an optional twenty-five year retirement plan for fire marshals employed in Suffolk County, including roles such as chief fire marshal and assistant chief fire marshal. The bill aims to provide these individuals with a pension benefit equal to one-half of their final average salary upon completing twenty-five years of service. For every year of service beyond twenty-five years, they would receive an additional increase of one-sixtieth of their salary, capping at three-fourths of the final average salary at retirement. It allows participating towns or villages within Suffolk County to provide these benefits, making them potentially attractive for recruitment and retention in public safety roles.

Contention

While A06911 aims to enhance the retirement benefits of fire marshals, it may face scrutiny regarding financial implications for Suffolk County and its municipalities. Concerns may arise about the sustainability of pension funding, given that the bill requires the participating employers to cover costs associated with these pension benefits, which can average about 40% of the covered employees' salaries. Stakeholders, including local governments and taxpayers, may express differing views on the bill, debating its financial viability against the need to support public safety personnel in their retirement planning.