Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Pensions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate Bill 7 hearing: sponsors, law enforcement groups urge repeal of post‑2003 age restriction for full retirement
Summary
Senate Bill 7 would remove an age‑50 requirement that bars members of the Highway Patrol Officers Retirement System and the Sheriffs’ Retirement System from drawing full benefits until age 50 even after 20 years of service; the sponsor and law‑enforcement representatives told the Senate State Administration and Veterans Affairs Committee the change is needed to preserve recruitment and parity across systems.
Senator Wendy McCamey (R‑Great Falls), sponsor of Senate Bill 7, told the State Administration and Veterans Affairs Committee the bill would “revert to how it was written in code previously” by removing language added in House Bill 569 that created a new tier requiring members hired after July 1, 2023 to be age 50 to draw full benefits after 20 years of service.
The bill matters because senators and law‑enforcement representatives said the age requirement created by HB 569 threatens recruitment and retention for highway patrol and sheriff’s offices, and that the change would restore parity between the Highway Patrol Officers Retirement System (HPORS), the Sheriffs’ Retirement System (SRS) and the Municipal Police Officers Retirement System (MPORS).
Colonel Kurt Sager, colonel of the Montana Highway Patrol, said the age‑50 requirement “is detrimental to our recruiting and retention efforts” and described examples of troopers retiring as soon as they reach 20 years of service rather than working until age 50. He told the committee that law enforcement careers include dangers and stressors that make continued service past 20 years difficult for many troopers.
Cascade County Sheriff Jesse Slaughter and Ravalli County Sheriff Holton testified in support, saying a 20‑year retirement without an additional age threshold helps keep morale and recruitment competitive for smaller agencies that hire from the same applicant pool. Sheriff Holton said the retirement benefit is “one of my best tools when…trying to recruit our best and brightest.”
Industry and labor groups also supported the bill. Kim Popham of the Montana Federation of Public Employees (MFPE) cited research on PTSD and depression among law enforcement and said restoring access to retirement after 20 years allows officers to leave when they need to for their safety. Jesse Luther, representing the Association of Montana Troopers, told senators the fiscal note shows limited fiscal impact: he said removing the age‑50 limit would cost the Highway Patrol system only about $21,000 and would not change amortization for that system in the near term.
Proponents emphasized recent committee study: Senator McCamey said the SAVA interim committee passed the measure out 8–2 and that the committee considered recruitment impacts, disparate treatment across retirement systems, and constitutional amortization requirements. William Hollahan, executive director of the Public Employees’ Retirement Administration (PERA), appeared as an informational witness to answer fiscal and actuarial questions.
No formal committee vote on SB 7 is recorded in the transcript. The hearing included more than a dozen proponent witnesses representing state patrol, sheriffs, unions and trade groups; one county detention officer also testified in support of the bill as a recruitment matter. The sponsor closed by asking the committee to “recognize our mistake, correct the mistake” and pass the bill.
