The Oregon Senate on Tuesday approved a bill that would increase retirement benefits for public employees who work in crime- or mental health-related environments, including district attorneys, state police forensic scientists and some state psychiatric hospital workers.
The biggest boost in collective retirement benefits would go to police and firefighters who were hired after the late 1990s or haven’t spent decades on the job.
The bill is now on its way to Gov. Tina Kotek’s desk for final approval.
Currently, police and firefighters who have logged 25 years in those roles can retire with full pensions at age 50 or 53, depending on when they were hired. But House Bill 4045, which passed the Senate on a 25-5 vote, would lower the full-pension retirement age for police officers and firefighters who have logged at least five years to age 55 from 60.
It would also reclassify the state’s 36 district attorneys as police officers for public pension purposes, which would lower the age at which they could retire and receive full pensions.
Most of the bill’s measures would go into effect in January 2025. State fiscal experts, who normally spell out the costs of any bill before lawmakers cast final votes, said the total cost of the expanded pension bill is unknown.
Sen. James Manning, a Democrat from Eugene and former police officer, praised the bill, saying police officers and firefighters should be able to retire earlier than other public employees because of the inherent risks they face.
“I think it is very relevant that we provide a pathway where they can have a retirement that is comparable to the work they put out,” Manning said.
Lowering the retirement age for police officers and firefighters would increase the pension fund deficit, known as the unfunded actuarial liability, by $110 million, according to a state analysis.
The bill would expand special treatment for those in crime- and danger-adjacent roles by creating a hazardous worker position for 911 operators and state psychiatric hospital workers who interact with patients, which some lawmakers have said could help attract and retain employees for these positions. Workers in these positions would be eligible for earlier retirement and higher employer pension contributions.
Though most of the bill received broad support, some lawmakers questioned a provision that reclassifies district attorneys, law enforcement forensic scientists and evidence technicians as police officers for pension purposes.
If Kotek signs the bill, employers of such workers would need to raise their yearly contribution to workers’ pensions from 1.5% to 1.8% of their salaries, according to a staff report.
Sen. Daniel Bonham, a Republican from Madras, said he opposes the reclassification because police and firefighters typically face more physical risks than the other employees the bill would add. Police and fire officers “are the ones that face potential bullets, knives, hazards,” he said.
Bonham suggested adding a secondary tier for state employees who occasionally face risks in their work environments. He said, “Maybe these jobs do have significant challenges to them, but not the same that we’ve designated for our policemen or firemen.”
Sen. Chris Gorsek, a Democrat from Gresham, retired Portland police officer and longtime community college criminal justice instructor, defended the provision. He said district attorneys and state police employees “are not likely to be facing bullets or imminent danger, but we’re talking here about the emotional impact that these jobs have.”
Although the total cost of the bill is unknown, it would dig the Oregon Public Employee Retirement System, which is operating at a massive deficit, into a deeper financial hole. The current estimate of the state fund’s 2023 deficit is $22.8 billion, according to an analysis by the Oregon Department of Administrative Services.
The analysis states that recategorizing district attorneys, forensic scientists and evidence technicians would have a minimal impact on the pension fund’s deficit because it would apply to a relatively low number of employees.
The price to create the new hazardous position, however, is unknown. The report states that the state analyst was “unable to accurately estimate the (financial) impact of the new hazardous benefit plan due to the need for population-specific demographic data from affected employers.”
The hazardous position category would not go into effect until 2030, according to the bill.
— Carlos Fuentes covers state politics and government. Reach him at 503-221-5386 or [email protected].
Our journalism needs your support. Subscribe today to OregonLive.com.