Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pensions And Benefits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would let airport firefighters join statewide firefighters’ pension; fiscal note pins cost on state contribution increase
Summary
A bill to allow full‑time airport authority firefighters to move from the Public Employees’ Retirement System to the Firefighters’ Unified Retirement System drew questions about higher state contribution rates and limited scope; proponents said only about 13 workers statewide would qualify as drafted.
Mark Thane, House District 89, opened the hearing on House Bill 640 to allow ``full paid firefighters and sworn police at airport authorities'' to participate in the Firefighters Unified Retirement System rather than the Public Employees Retirement System.
The bill would change statutory definitions to allow airport authority firefighters who meet the bill’s job‑duty description to transfer into the firefighters’ system. ``Because of definitions and because of job titles currently [the bill] impacts only 13 individuals in the state,'' Thane told the committee.
William Hollahan, executive director of the Montana Public Employee Retirement Administration, testified as a proponent and said his agency prepared the fiscal note. He described operational similarities between municipal firefighters and airport firefighters and said the agency stands ready to answer actuarial questions. Hollahan confirmed the fiscal note reflects a larger employer contribution for the firefighters’ system.
Committee members pressed on the fiscal mechanics. One lawmaker summarized the difference in contribution rates cited in the fiscal note: roughly a 9.17% state appropriation rate under the public‑employees system versus 32.61% under the firefighters’ system. Hollahan and Thane confirmed that the state’s share of the employer contribution would increase if eligible airport firefighters moved into the firefighters’ plan.
Members also asked why Missoula’s airport, in practice, appears to be the only airport with employees meeting the bill’s current definition. Hollahan said municipal airport authorities are codified under Title 67 and that while Missoula is the only airport that currently fits the bill’s definition, other airport authorities could opt in if they met the job‑duty and title requirements.
Lawmakers pressed on retirement eligibility differences. Hollahan explained the firefighters’ system allows retirement after 20 years of service at any age, whereas the public‑employees tier for later hires requires age 65 for full retirement. Thane said sponsors brought the bill in part because airport firefighters and similar public safety staff face heavy physical demands that tend to push them into earlier retirement.
The sponsor reserved closing remarks after proponents and opponents; the hearing was closed with the record left open for further committee action. No formal committee vote on the bill appears in the transcript.
Ending: Committee members asked for follow‑up material to clarify how many airport authorities statewide would be affected and for the committee to see any local cost/recruitment data before executive action.
