Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Pensions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears wide support for restoring 20-year retirement eligibility for county and highway officers
Summary
Sen. Wendy McCamey carried SB7 to restore parity in retirement eligibility so members of the sheriff's retirement system and the highway patrol retirement system may retire after 20 years of service regardless of age; law-enforcement associations, unions and retirement administrators testified the change is actuarially sound and important for recruitment and safety.
Sen. Wendy McCamey (Senate District 12) told the committee Senate Bill 7 restores parity across three law-enforcement retirement systems so officers with 20 years of service can retire without an additional age requirement. The sponsor said the change corrects a disparity created in the 2023 session and restores long-standing practice.
Proponents included Colonel Kurt Sager, Montana Highway Patrol, who said a rule requiring officers to wait until age 50 to collect a 20-year-earned retirement "is detrimental to our hiring efforts" and cited stress, workplace danger and recent increased vacancies. Sheriff Leo Dutton and patrol Sergeant Joshua Jonas described traumatic job stresses, mental-health risks and why 20-year eligibility matters in retention. Jesse Luther and other retirement experts explained the fiscal note: the change increases the accrued actuarial liability by about $21,000 in present-value terms and would keep the highway patrol system's amortization at about 24 years, leaving the systems actuarially sound.
Union and association witnesses (Montana Federation of Public Employees, Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers, Montana AFL-CIO, AFSCME and others) urged the committee to support the bill for recruitment, retention and officer safety. William Hollahan of the Montana Public Employees Retirement Administration appeared as an informational witness on the fiscal note and said the change does not materially affect unfunded actuarial accrued liability.
Committee members asked for data about how many officers might leave immediately if eligibility changed; witnesses said exact predictions were difficult but pointed to recruitment and retention advantages. The sponsor closed urging a due-pass recommendation. The transcript records a full hearing with broad support and no committee vote recorded during the session.
Next steps: Committee heard and closed public testimony; no recorded final vote in the transcript.
