Posted on Thu, Aug. 12, 2010 - Philadelphia Inquirer
      Les Johnson was at the city's pension office last week when he heard 
      the news: Mayor Nutter was calling on City Council to kill Philadelphia's 
      DROP pension program, citing a new study saying it costs taxpayers $22.3 
      million a year.
      Johnson, who has worked as a police officer for nearly 30 years, 
      already had applied for the program. But the mayor's announcement pushed 
      him to finalize his decision.
      "It's too much money to lose," Johnson, 49, said of the $205,000 he 
      will collect in pension money if he continues to work for the city for 
      four more years, the maximum amount of time an employee can stay after 
      entering DROP.
      The Deferred Retirement Option Program allows employees eligible for 
      retirement to pick a retirement date four years in the future. That 
      decision freezes the employee's pension benefit and prompts the city to 
      start putting the person's pension payment aside in an account with a 4.5 
      percent yearly interest rate.
      When the employee leaves the city, he gets the amount in the account 
      and starts collecting a monthly pension.
      Nutter's call to eliminate DROP set off a rush to apply for the 
      program. Since the mayor's Aug. 3 news conference, 542 city employees have 
      signed up. As of that time, 3,132 city employees were eligible to 
      enroll.
      Bill Gault, president of Local 22 of the International Association of 
      Fire Fighters, said the fear that DROP would end had fueled anxiety among 
      many workers, including himself.
      He is 52 and trying to figure out whether to apply for DROP. Police and 
      firefighters get five years of medical coverage after they retire but then 
      must pay for health insurance until eligible for Medicare.
      "We don't do this job to get rich," Gault said. "We do this job because 
      it's a calling. Basically, what I have to figure out is, will DROP be 
      enough to eliminate my mortgage and live on my $2,500 to $3,000 a month 
      and pay my medical?"
      Council Sergeant-at-Arms David Rosario, 61, applied, too, though he 
      said he would have done so with or without the mayor's announcement 
      because he will be 65 in four years. Rosario has worked for the city for 
      13 years. The amount Rosario could collect under DROP is not yet 
      available.
      "I only joined because I qualified," he said.
      Johnson applied earlier than Rosario, and so already knows that he will 
      collect about $205,000 if he stays the full four years. After that, 
      Johnson will receive a pension payment of $3,917 a month.
      Joseph Esuchanko, an actuary in Troy, Mich., who has studied DROP 
      plans, said it is difficult to estimate how much Johnson's decision had 
      cost or saved the city.
      "We don't know what any one individual costs until that individual 
      dies," Esuchanko said.
      Esuchanko calculated that if Johnson lived to 82, the average 
      expectancy for men his age, his DROP decision would cost the city $55,000 
      more than if he had retired without DROP at 53. If Johnson died younger 
      than 82, the cost would increase. If he lived longer than 82, it would 
      cost the city less and might even save the city money because the lower 
      pension payment over that time would compensate for the initial $205,000, 
      Esuchanko said.
      Johnson, who works with bomb-sniffing dogs at the airport, knows that 
      some people see his ability to work and collect his salary of about 
      $61,000 while accumulating pension payments as unfair.
      "I read all the articles in the paper where people think we are 
      double-dipping," he said. "It's not the truth."
      For one thing, he said, the amount in his DROP account is money he 
      could have collected if he retired, so the city would have had to pay it 
      anyway. And if he retired, the city might have to hire someone to replace 
      him, so Philadelphia would pay a salary, too, though one that would likely 
      be smaller than Johnson's.
      Johnson also reduces his yearly pension by about 10 percent by entering 
      DROP. Entering the program also means both he and the city stop 
      contributing money for him to the pension fund. While that is a gain to 
      him and a savings to the city, the pension fund also loses the opportunity 
      to invest that money.
      "Basically, what the city is doing is putting my monthly DROP payment 
      into an account," Johnson said. "The way I look at it, it's my money."
      He's not convinced that the conclusions in last week's report from 
      Boston College economist Anthony Webb that said the city spent an extra 
      $258 million on DROP over the last 10 years are correct. The city's unions 
      plan to hire their own experts to assess DROP.
      Johnson thinks he is proof that DROP works exactly as intended. It 
      gives the city time to plan for his retirement. He gets a nest egg that 
      will protect his family but takes a 10 percent haircut on his pension in 
      return.
      He and his wife, who works at a credit union, make a good living, but 
      this is the East Coast, and they also pay Catholic-school tuition for 
      their two children.
      "I couldn't save that kind of money," Johnson said. "This is another 
      nest egg. You'd be crazy not to take it."
       
      
      Contact staff writer Miriam Hill at 
      215-854-5520 or hillmb@phillynews.com.