Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Pension Reform topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Senate committee hears bill to raise employer contributions to police and fire pension fund

Senate Financial Institutions, Insurance and Technology Committee · April 14, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Sponsors told the committee SB 239 would raise employer contributions for police to 24% phased over five years to mirror firefighters, citing the Ohio Police & Fire Fund's amortization approaching the statutory 30-year cap and aiming to improve long-term funding stability.

Senators heard sponsor testimony for Senate Bill 239, a measure that would raise employer contribution rates for police officers to 24% from 19.5% over five years and give the Ohio Police & Fire (OP&F) pension fund additional actuarial flexibility if the fund's amortization exceeds the statutory 30-year cap.

Senator Brenner, the bill's sponsor, said the measure "raises the employer contribution rate for police officers to 24% from 19.5% over the course of 5 years" and argued parity with firefighters is fiscally responsible and necessary to protect retiree benefits. He told the committee the fund had an amortization period of 29.88 years as of Jan. 1, 2025, and said the bill limits how rapidly employer contributions can increase in any three-year period.

Senator Katona, joint sponsor, said contribution rates have been effectively stagnant since 1986 and that phasing employer adjustments would give municipalities time to adapt while requiring OP&F to report any amortization periods that exceed 30 years to the Ohio Retirement Study Council.

Senator Lang questioned whether the change would effectively become a property-tax burden for municipalities and asked whether alternative funding sources had been considered. Sponsors said the phased-in schedule was designed to give local governments flexibility to manage benefits and adjust budgets rather than imposing sudden, unexpected costs.

The chair concluded the bill's first hearing after questions. No vote was taken on SB 239 during this session.