Your current web browser is outdated. For best viewing experience, please consider upgrading to the latest version.

Donation - Other Level

Please use the quantity box to donate any amount you wish. Sign Up to Donate

Contact

Send a question or comment using the form below. This message may be routed through support staff.

Email Article

Password Reset Request

Register


Add a topic or expert to your feed.

Following

Follow Experts & Topics

Stay on top of our work by selecting topics and experts of interest.

Experts
Topics
Project
On The Ground
ERROR
Main Error Mesage Here
More detailed message would go here to provide context for the user and how to proceed
ERROR
Main Error Mesage Here
More detailed message would go here to provide context for the user and how to proceed

Manhattan Institute

search
Close Nav

Connecticut City Pensions: The Affordability Gap

report

Connecticut City Pensions: The Affordability Gap

June 20, 2018
Public SectorPension Reform

Abstract

An Analysis of Bridgeport, New Haven, Hartford, Stamford, and Waterbury

Connecticut state government’s pension struggles are well understood: deep levels of underfunding have led to credit-rating downgrades, tax increases, recurring budget deficits, and an inability to fund essential services. What has been overlooked, though, is the challenge that the state’s five largest cities by population—Bridgeport, New Haven, Hartford, Stamford, and Waterbury—face in paying for their own retirement benefit promises.

Key Findings

  • All five of these cities have promised hundreds of millions of dollars in benefits, a promise that is backed, ultimately, by their tax base. With the exception of Stamford, however, they all have weak economies and elevated rates of poverty.
  • While the state’s record of pension mismanagement is well documented, cities have been guilty of mismanagement as well. However, for the state’s five biggest cities, the question of affordability is more important than mismanagement.
  • Despite rate increases, property tax revenues have not been keeping up with pension costs in New Haven, Hartford, and Stamford. Hartford’s property tax revenues, for example, grew by $2.7 million from FY08 to FY17 in real terms, while its pension costs grew by $16.7 million. Though annual costs for retiree health care have not risen as dramatically, they are still high, totaling $132 million for all five cities combined. This is a questionable expenditure, considering that the private sector has largely phased out health-care benefits for retired workers.
  • The case for dramatic retirement benefit reform—meaning phasing out retiree health care and transitioning workers from a defined-benefit to a defined-contribution plan—may be more urgent for Connecticut’s biggest cities than for the state.

READ FULL REPORT

 

 

______________________

Stephen Eide is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

Saved!
Close