New York Assembly Bill A08179

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 5/5/25
• Refer: 5/5/25

Caption

Recalibrates the final average salary retirement calculations in the New York state teachers' retirement system for Joanne Halverson by including certain earnings from the 2020-2021 year.

Impact

By including Halverson's earnings from the 2020-2021 fiscal year in her FAS, the bill seeks to provide her with a more favorable retirement benefit. The financial implications of A08179 indicate an estimated annual cost of approximately $6,000 for the employers of New York State Teachers' Retirement System members should the bill pass. Furthermore, should the bill's provisions be extended to other members similarly affected, it could result in substantial fiscal impacts on the retirement system, as it would necessitate a redefinition of the calculation method used for the final average salary across the board.

Summary

Bill A08179 proposes a recalibration of the final average salary (FAS) retirement calculations specifically for Joanne Halverson, a teacher from the South Country school district who is scheduled to retire in June 2025. The bill aims to address the adverse impact on her salary due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which resulted in significant reductions in her earnings for the 2020-2021 fiscal year. Traditionally, the FAS calculation includes the highest wages over a continuous three-year period, but during the pandemic, Halverson's year of reduced salary did not exceed the prior two years' average by a minimum 10%, disqualifying that year's earnings from the calculation as per existing laws.

Contention

While the bill aims to rectify the earnings loss experienced by Halverson, discussions surrounding it may raise broader questions regarding the precedent it sets. Critics may argue that tailoring retirement calculations for individuals based on specific situations may open the door for further exceptions, complicating the retirement system's framework. Additionally, the implications for fiscal responsibility among the system's participating employers make this a contentious point, as there may be concerns over the equitable treatment of all teachers and potential budgetary constraints that could arise from any future extensions of similar considerations to a wider group of educators.