Jeanne Pisatowski's evening volleyball mixer wasn't quite as festive last week.

There was still homemade pie and wine, but the topic on tap -- the future of pensions and benefits for public workers -- killed the party mood among the teachers gathered at her home in Wayne .

"I'm very concerned," said Pisatowski, 67, a public school teacher for 27 years. "It's going to hurt me."

A legislative committee looking to drive down property taxes proposed dozens of changes to the state pension and benefit system last week. Their suggestions immediately sparked calls for mass protests by the state's unions, which are especially concerned about proposed increases to health insurance premiums.

Lawmakers say the proposals are reasonable ways to save state funds and crack down on benefit abuse.

"They are entitled to their opinion," said Assemblyman Kevin O'Toole, R-Wayne, about the unions. "But some people think the proposals haven't gone far enough."

Four bipartisan committees unveiled 98 recommendations on Wednesday for how to drive down the state's sky-high property taxes. Lawmakers hope to reduce property taxes for most homeowners by 20 percent. That shift will cost roughly $2 billion.

Nearly $500 million would be saved under a recommendation for all employees to pay up to 10 percent of their health coverage, according to the committee's research. The state now covers the entire tab for most employees.

The pension proposals have the most potential to shave state costs, according to lawmakers. The committee hopes to increase the retirement age for new workers from 55 to 62. The state's annual pension contribution for workers would decrease by 8 percent.

It is unlikely that the changes will affect existing employees, though it's still up for debate, O'Toole said. All the proposals must be voted on by the full Legislature. Changes to health benefits will likely go through union negotiations.

Even the threat of benefit changes has some workers wondering if they should retire immediately. Almost a quarter of state teachers are now eligible to leave, the teacher union estimates.

Alice Parker is reluctantly debating whether she should hang up her hat after almost 40 years as a Wayne art teacher. "I so love teaching," said Parker, 57. "I don't want to be in a position where I have to retire."

New Jersey 's pension benefit would fall slightly below the national average after an 8 percent reduction, said Keith Brainard of the National Association of State Retirement Administrators, a membership organization.

The state's medical coverage is more generous than the national average, Brainard said. He didn't view the pension reduction as alarming.

"You can retire just as easily on that," Brainard said.

Pisatowski is not so sure. She was told by a financial adviser that her retirement income could drop by $10,000 as a result of the reduction. Another proposal to base workers' pensions on their income from their last five years of work -- rather than three -- could also hurt her.

The committee also hopes to ban employees' ability to collect pensions from more than one public job. Few -- if any -- other states allow dual pension-holders, Brainard said.

Municipal financial officers, judges and other professionals make up the bulk of dual pension-holders. Cathy Botti, a Rutherford councilwoman, worries about attracting good talent without the dual pension option. "Our salaries trail those of private-sector jobs," she said.

The average pension for state employees was $26,685 in 2005, according to Mark Perkiss, a spokesman for the state Division of Taxation. The average for teachers was nearly double that figure, at $42,185. The average for police and fire retirees was $47,187.

National averages for private pensions run much lower. The median private pension income was $6,840 in 2005, according to a congressional report. That's less than half the national average for public pensions.

Louis Johnson, of Paterson , regrets his decision to leave a job in a state jail for painting jobs with private companies. "I should have stayed in corrections," said Johnson, 56, who has no pension.

Parker, the teacher, acknowledged that her benefits are much higher than most workers. But that's her right, she argues, after decades dedicated to New Jersey 's schools.

"Even though I started at a stinky salary, I knew I was going to have good pension," she said.
Lawmakers say the proposals are reasonable ways to save state funds and crack down on benefit abuse.

Labor leaders and lawmakers both agree that the state's pension and health care systems -- which are $38 billion in the red -- need fixing. But the unions plan to protest in Trenton when lawmakers take up the bills in December.

Pisatowski might protest with her feet. "I can retire tomorrow," she said. "I love what I do. But this is very scary."

Reach Heather Haddon at 973-569-7121 or haddon@northjersey.com.

* * *

Proposals at a glance

Increase the retirement age for new workers from 55 to 62.

Decrease the state's annual contribution to workers' pensions by 8 percent.

Cap pensions to a $97,500 salary

Exclude those earning under $5,000 from a pension.

Base pensions on income from the last five years of work

Shift new part-time, appointed and elected officials to 401(k) pensions.

Designate one pension for those with multiple public jobs.

Crack down on salary boosting and other pension abuses.

Require all workers to pay 5 to 10 percent premiums on their health care benefits.

Require future retirees to pay a portion of their health care benefits

Study the number of paid holidays given to employees

Sources: Joint Legislative Committee on Public Employee Benefits Reform.