Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Council moves to eliminate mandatory retirement age for MPD and Fire/EMS as part of retention push
Loading...
Summary
The Council reported Bill 26‑358 to remove the 60‑year mandatory retirement age for MPD and Fire/EMS, keeping physical‑fitness standards in place; members debated recruitment, overtime and mental‑health screening before placing the bill on the consent agenda.
Council member Brooke Pinto brought Bill 26‑358, the First Responder Retention Efforts Amendment Act of 2026, to the Committee of the Whole. The bill would eliminate the mandatory retirement age of 60 for Metropolitan Police Department and Fire/EMS personnel while maintaining existing physical‑examination requirements through the police and fire clinic.
Pinto and colleagues framed the change as a retention tool intended to preserve institutional knowledge and allow experienced members who pass required medical and physical exams to remain on duty. Pinto said current physicals remain annual and include vision and mobility testing; she committed to follow up with colleagues about any cognitive or additional testing requirements. Pinto also tied the measure to other workforce strategies, including modification of education credit requirements and hiring bonuses.
Council members pressed operational and cultural questions: one member asked whether eliminating the retirement age risks ageism or whether it imposes additional testing; another raised concerns about cognitive screening and mental‑health impacts for long‑tenured officers. Pinto noted negotiated clinic services include mental‑health professionals and said she would return with details on cognitive testing requirements. Chair Mendelson and others emphasized the greater recruitment challenge (lack of applicants) and regionally competitive hiring bonuses offered by federal agencies.
Members said the bill is one piece of a multi‑pronged strategy to address attrition and recruitment, including looking at bonuses, education requirements and improved working conditions to address overtime and morale. The committee found the measure legally sufficient, the budget director said there is no fiscal impact as reported, and the bill was placed on the consent agenda.

