Revising membership in FURS to include airport authority public safety employees
Summary
HB 640 revises Montana’s Firefighters’ Unified Retirement System (FURS) to expand who may participate. The bill adds airport authority public safety officers—defined as employees who serve both as full-paid firefighters and sworn peace officers for an airport authority—to the list of employers and members covered by the system. It also updates the statutory definition of “employer” and “public safety officer” to reflect this new category.
The bill amends the participation rules in 19-13-210, MCA, so that airport authorities with public safety officers covered by the Public Employees’ Retirement System may elect to join FURS in the same manner as certain cities and rural fire districts. If an airport authority elects coverage, existing employees get a one-time, irrevocable choice to remain in PERS or move to FURS, while new hires after the effective date must be covered by FURS. The bill takes effect July 1, 2025.
Impact
HB 640 would change Montana retirement law by broadening eligibility for the firefighters’ retirement system and by creating a specific statutory pathway for airport authorities to opt in. It affects sections 19-13-104 and 19-13-210, MCA, and would alter retirement coverage, employer obligations, and employee election rights for airport authority public safety personnel. The bill does not mandate participation for airport authorities, but it authorizes them to join and sets the rules for how current and future employees would be treated if they do.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have had generally favorable support early in the process, passing the House State Administration Committee unanimously and clearing second reading with a substantial majority. However, support weakened later in the House, where an appropriations-related motion to table the bill passed narrowly and a subsequent motion failed by a one-vote margin. Overall, the voting history suggests the policy change was broadly acceptable on its merits, but it encountered resistance or procedural opposition as it moved through the House.
Contention
The main point of contention appears to have been fiscal and procedural rather than the core policy of extending FURS eligibility. The narrow votes on the appropriations motion and later motion indicate concern about cost, retirement-system liabilities, or whether the bill should advance further. No committee transcript is available, but the voting pattern suggests that while many lawmakers supported recognizing airport authority public safety officers as eligible for FURS, others were hesitant about the financial implications of expanding a defined retirement system.