Oregon Bill Would Allow Police Officers, Firefighters to Retire at 50

An Oregon bill that would lower the retirement age for thousands of police officers, firefighters and prosecutors from age 53 to 50 is gaining traction in the Legislature, with two leaders of a Senate committee indicating their bipartisan willingness Tuesday to try to shepherd it through.

“Colleagues, turns out being a firefighter and a police officer is not easy work,” said Sen. Kathleen Taylor, a Portland Democrat and chair of the Senate Labor and Business Committee. “And it turns out that maybe after 25 years of service an individual has been through quite a bit.”

Sen. Daniel Bonham, committee co-chair and the Republican minority leader, even indicated his openness to finding money in the state budget to pay for the proposal, to relieve local governments from their share of the roughly $11 million a year cost the bill would impose.

Some research has found that police officers’ and firefighters’ years of stress and exposure to dangers or chemicals on the job can easily shear off a decade from their life expectancies. Little to no data is available for the life expectancy of prosecutors, but supporters of earlier retirements for district attorneys have said they also have high-stress jobs that often pay less than the best private sector ones.

Though the bill would place a financial burden on cities, counties and fire districts to come up with more money, would cost an estimated $3 million to implement and would create an estimated $80 million in unfunded liability for the state’s retirement system, supporters say it’s necessary to keep public safety employees from leaving for California or Washington, where they say the pensions are better.

Officials with the Oregon Public Employees Retirement System say they haven’t done an analysis showing how the state’s pensions for first responders compare to its neighbors’. The Legislature’s research office hasn’t published one, either.

Karl Koenig, president of the Oregon State Fire Fighters Council, told the committee that some of the state’s more than 13,000 police and firefighters are leaving for California and Washington after working five to 10 years in Oregon. Turnover in some departments is three times what it used to be, with many attracted to select local governments in California that have reduced the retirement age to 50, Koenig said. Though California’s statewide system allows retirement with full benefits at age 55 and Washington at 53, Koenig said their retirement packages are more enticing.

“This is about competitiveness,” Koenig said. “Really attracting people to public safety is a complete package. It’s not just upfront salary. It’s working conditions and then, at the end, retirement security and retiring with dignity.”

Although Koenig said he also hasn’t done an analysis because there are many complicated factors that go into an employee’s decision to leave Oregon — including salary, health benefits, pensions, housing prices that vary city to city and state to state — some first responders have assessed the landscape on their own and made the decisions to move, he said.

Senate Bill 902, as currently amended, aims to sweeten the pot for public safety employees across most of the state who were hired in 2003 or later and aren’t allowed to retire under the state’s old retirement rules. Those rules allowed employees to call it quits by age 50 if they had 25 years on the job.

For most of Oregon, the age at which police and firefighters could retire with a full pension rose to 53 in 2003. Rules changes for first responders in Portland took effect later, in 2007.

Oregon law allows other state employees enrolled in the Public Employees Retirement System to retire with full benefits at age 58, as long as they have at least 30 years on the job.

Senate Bill 902 would kick in for police, firefighters and other public safety employees at age 50 if they have at least 25 years on the job. It would grant them full benefits at that time, though their benefits would grow if they stayed on the job even longer.

Critics say what often happens is police and firefighters — as well as other public employees — retire when they are eligible, then continue working for years longer in their same fields while collecting retirement benefits. Supporters say they’ve earned their retirements after putting their lives on the line for their entire careers. Koenig says many go back to work for the health insurance.

Prosecutors, parole and probation officers, correctional officers and employees who enforce the state’s lottery and Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission rules also would be able to retire three years earlier if the bill passes. Deputy prosecutors were included in the same bucket in 2023, followed by elected district attorneys in 2024.

That was the same year the Legislature also lowered the retirement age for public safety employees who didn’t yet have 25 years on the job from 60 to 55.

Counties have expressed worries about the financial implications of this year’s bill. The retirement system estimates all public employers would collectively owe an extra $4.6 million a year, while the smaller number of employers who employ police, firefighters, prosecutors, corrections officers or other workers in that same category would owe an additional $6.3 million a year.

Justin Low, legislative affairs manager for the Association of Oregon Counties, said for those who don’t think the costs would be too impactful, he thinks of the phrase “each raindrop does not believe that it created the flood.” At the same time, Low said counties have great respect and appreciation for their public safety employees.

“We do not refute the intent for reducing the retirement age for this class, especially considering how demanding these professions can be,” Low said. “Our concerns with this legislation strictly lies with the fact that local governments in Oregon are grappling with mounting fiscal challenges.”

That appeared to draw some offense from Taylor, the bill’s sponsor.

“Well, it’s challenging when I hear comments about ‘We respect and support and want to be behind the work’ and then to conclude with opposition to the measure,” Taylor said.

Bonham, the committee’s co-chair, responded that maybe statewide taxes could shoulder the financial burden.

“The state has the ability to prioritize this and say we understand your plight and your limited resources and your limited amount and ability to tax,” Bonham said after a lobbyist for Oregon’s counties said the cost would be too great. “And we (state lawmakers) have relatively unlimited capacity to tax. … We have the ability to prioritize our budget and offset the cost.”

_____________

Visit oregonlive.com.

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.