I am a retired Henderson firefighter. I spent my career serving this community, protecting families and responding when people needed help. I never expected that, after retirement, I would have to ask my city government to explain how it is spending taxpayer money.
But that is where we are.
On Sept. 1, the Henderson City Council voted to terminate the Retirement Health Insurance Premium Assistance program, the retiree health benefit many of us relied upon, and to transition current employees to an enhanced Retirement Health Savings program.
The decision was repeatedly justified as necessary because of fiduciary responsibility and protecting taxpayers. The Review-Journal supported the move in a recent editorial.
There is just one problem: Henderson taxpayers were not given the whole financial picture.
This isn’t only about retired firefighters, police officers or city employees. It is about every Henderson taxpayer whose money funds the city of Henderson.
Under the agreement the City Council approved, the city will contribute $9 per employee per pay period in 2026, $11 in 2027 and $14 beginning in 2028 to individual RHS accounts. The city says the initial $9 contribution represents the previous annual city contribution to RHIPA, approximately $330,000 per year.
If that comparison holds, increasing the contribution to $14 represents an increase of more than 55 percent — approximately $513,000 annually beginning in 2028, assuming a similar employee population.Over 10, 20 or 30 years, those taxpayer dollars add up to millions: Approximately $15 million.
So where is the apples-to-apples comparison?
Taxpayers were told preserving RHIPA could require $5 million to $7.5 million in city funding. Fine. Show us the math. But what will the replacement program cost taxpayers over the same period? How much will the city contribute over 10, 20 or 30 years? How does that compare with restructuring RHIPA?
The city’s own documents indicate RHIPA was not projected to enter a negative position until the fiscal 2037. They also acknowledge that alternatives involving increased funding, reduced benefits and combinations of the two were modeled. Yet retirees who asked for more time to review that information were told Council needed to act.
That is why Mayor Michelle Romero’s leadership deserves scrutiny.
The mayor had an obligation to ensure taxpayers understood the full financial consequences of the decision. Instead, the public was given a justification centered on the cost of preserving RHIPA without, at least publicly, seeing the comparable long-term cost of the replacement agreement.
I believe that was disingenuous — in the explanation, in the vote and in the leadership shown to retirees and taxpayers.
I am not arguing that current employees should not receive retirement health-care assistance. They should. I am arguing that taxpayers deserve transparency when their money is being committed for decades.
I have requested the actuarial analyses, council briefing materials, long-term cost projections and records supporting the claim that fiduciary responsibility required action on Sept. 1. If the numbers prove the Council made the right financial decision, release them. If the replacement program saves taxpayers money, show us. If no apples-to-apples comparison was provided before the vote, taxpayers deserve to know that, too.
I spent my career answering calls when people needed help. Today, I’m asking Henderson’s elected officials to answer a different kind of call: Don’t give taxpayers talking points. Give them the numbers.
The vote is over. But the taxpayers are still paying the bill.
Bill Rotroff is a retired Henderson Fire Department captain with 35 years of service.
