Portland, Tennessee Blog

I do not disagree that the life expectancy for officers is shorter than for the rest of the general population, but if you take a look at the studies, the issue has more to do with their overall fitness/wellness than the dangers of being killed by felons.

I say this with absolutely NO INTENTION of diminishing the fact that there are inate dangers associated with their work. They are deserving of our respect and support in return for the sacrifices they make to protect and serve our community. My point is simply that they need to take care of themselves (mentally, physically, spiritually) throughout their career. "Early retirement" will not erase years of neglect. I put early retirement in quotes because 60 isn't THAT early and 25 years of service at ANY job, moreless a stressful one, is more than enough to satisfy a general sense that one has paid their dues. (military personnel can retire after 20 years . . . does anyone have a problem with that?)

The issue for me isn't so much about how old they are, it has more to do with whether we can finacially fulfill the promises we make. No matter where you work, whether it's a desk job or high risk, you count on social security, pensions, etc., and we all know where social security is heading.

I do not disagree that the life expectancy for officers is shorter than for the rest of the general population, but if you take a look at the studies, the issue has more to do with their overall fitness/wellness than the dangers of being killed by felons.

I say this with absolutely NO INTENTION of diminishing the fact that there are inate dangers associated with their work. They are deserving of our respect and support in return for the sacrifices they make to protect and serve our community. My point is simply that they need to take care of themselves (mentally, physically, spiritually) throughout their career. "Early retirement" will not erase years of neglect. I put early retirement in quotes because 60 isn't THAT early and 25 years of service at ANY job, moreless a stressful one, is more than enough to satisfy a general sense that one has paid their dues. (military personnel can retire after 20 years . . . does anyone have a problem with that?)

The issue for me isn't so much about how old they are, it has more to do with whether we can finacially fulfill the promises we make. No matter where you work, whether it's a desk job or high risk, you count on social security, pensions, etc., and we all know where social security is heading.

I as well are neither for or against, but look forward to hearing more on this issue.

Will this type of policy bring about issues where candidates for such retirement plan may become leaned on as they draw close to early retirement age? Forcing their hand to quit, or take a desk job where early retirement at 55 doesn't qualify?

Just look at one of the comments at the bottom of the tennessean article link, where it is quoted that a county will probably wait atleast a year or more before making a decision on this issue because it will save them about 150k in retirement benefits that would have to be paid to employees that would retire at the age of 55.

I see this as finding ways to get around it, maybe I am not reading it right, but if they are already looking at ways to avoid, what's to stop it in the future after passed? And this is from the powers to be who should be looking out for the welfare of the individuals who protect and serve us. I'm confused looks like it all boils down to the almighty dollar.

I am not for or against this proposal. I have a number of questions that need to be answered before I can take a stand one way or the other, so let me get started.

1. How many firemen and police officers in Portland are CURRENTLY (or within the next year) qualified for retirement under this new plan?
2. What is the criteria for retiring at 55 versus 60?
3. Is this going to cause a mass exodus?
4. How will this affect future hiring practices? Honestly! If we think we will only hire young officers to replace the older ones, that simply can't be guaranteed. (because that would be illegal)
5. Will we have to provide this benefit to officers that spent the majority of their career serving and protecting OTHER communities or would they have to be vested?
6. Is this in addition to, or would it replace the City's current retirement plan? What is the cost DIFFERENCE?
7. How do we propose to FUND this?
8. Why is Portland scrambling to be first in line for this? It seems to me that we are constantly going zero to 60 in 5.7 sec, or slamming on the brakes. Has anyone ever considered smooth and steady?
9. How do our CURRENT officers and firefighters feel about this plan?

I look forward to reading the answers to my questions.

How many of you who are griping about the Police and Firemen getting to retire earlier than you have a job where the average life expectancy is 55 yrs.Hell,I'd retire early too.These men put their lives on the line every day for YOU and this is the thanks they get.You,acting like your job even compares to walking up to a traffic stop without knowing who is in the car or what their intentions are,PLEASE!The Police officers get no credit when they prevent a crime,but get it laid on them when one is committed.I say thank you to each officer and firefighter who serves this community.Think about what you're saying while you're dialing 911 for a fire or home invasion.

City workers should work just like the Taxpayer's that pay their salary's. Were not getting a break and they shouldn't either. They choose their job and if they couldn't handle the stress then they should have choosen something else.

Jody Mc It doesn't matter if it is 100 or 50 if you have a large number that reach that age close to the same time then the city will be put under a lot of finacial strain. I agree with a lot of your ideas but this is a VERY BAD IDEA.

I like every member of my family will have to work until I'm old enough to retire at 62 or 65. Unless I can afford to retire early because I invested my money. My employer isn't going to say why don't you go ahead and retire and I'll keep paying you until you are old enough to draw Social Security.

I am not so in favor of the early retirement for fire and police as I am mandatory physical fitness requirements for them.

Don't think we need to be looking at giving them that early retirement benefit.

DC? If this city sees 100 officers in 20 years from now? Their retirement will be the least of our problems!

Bad Idea

They should work to the age of at least 62 like every other person. If they don't want to then they can Quit or transfer to other city departments. If the city does this and can't opt out think about what could happen in 20 or 30 Years. Say the city has 100 Officers and Fireman and 70% reach the age of 55 or 60 all within two to three years of each other. Imagine how much that would cost the city then. Start thinking about what problems you will be leaving your kids to try and fix.

It would be nice if we could all retire early but that's life. Like it or not............

Thanks for the quick response, and the explanation. I'll be on the lookout for your detailed explanation, but from the little I know now, it sounds like it will be a good option for us, and those who protect us.

chuck, probably the biggest reason i can see that only 2 cities have adopted so far is because this law was JUST recently passed at the state level. Also, it passed UNANIMOUSLY! something that rarely ever happens! And the comment about the state mandating what we pay is like this: The state did calculations to determine how much cost the cities would need to incur, they told me that they came up with a conservative figure of 3.5% to fund the project. It IS possible that when it's assessed down the road, that they may determine 3.5% isn't enough and increase that amount. However, TCRS also told me that the amount could go DOWN! In any case, they explained that the adjustment, if any, would be minor. At least that's the way I understood.

P.S. I have a much more detailed post for this topic that I'm typing, but felt like i needed to reply to this concern

I fully support our police and firefighters, but I would like some clarification on the issue of,"the state decides how much we must pay". I am very leery of implementing any program for our city, when the details are dictated by the state. I feel our elected officials have a better understanding of our budget, and our needs, than our state representatives. I am also wary of jumping into a program that has no "escape clause".

There must be a good reason only two other cities have opted for this plan, and I would like to hear the reasoning others have relied on for choosing this plan, or rejecting it.

Thanks for giving us the opportunity to discuss this.

I will go a step further.
There will be NO hesitation on my part to support this measure, if at the same time in the budget, we add 3 new officers, 3 new cars, and 2 new fireman plus gear.

That is the kind of measure I can get behind!
Lets push for a package deal!

I fully understand this is emotional, but all sides will be heard. I am not "muddying" (not sure if that is even a word)I am simply stating concerns.
The guy who is riding the back of a trash truck at 60 wants to retire with dignity also and he has a RIGHT to ask that question.
Also, some think the force needs to be reduced now; I for one DO NOT AGREE, and I hope this measure will not hinder future hires.
As with anything the cost must be weighed. The city will have to start adding another 3.5% extra to every full time fireman and policeman; and this figure WILL go up!
Are the public safety workers willing to take a cut or not have pay increases to fund this? Are local citizens willing to have their property taxes raised or other services cut to fund this? These are legitimate questions.
It is not simply a matter of seeing the merit of this, but also the entirety of it.
Trust me, there is no one pulling harder for public safety than me; that is evident at budget time.
I had made up my mind I would push for more officers for 2 reasons: 1. to provide more protection for our city; 2. to provide more safety for our officers!
Remember only 2 cities have passed this; money is a factor and that the state will decide how much we will have to pay.
Once done, we will be mandated to continue it.

Like I said, I would be more comfortable with it, if I had assurances that we would continue to grow both departments (fire and police); but frankly it is an up hill battle to increase the funding for public safety; because some do not see the need.

Mr. Callis This seams like a small price to pay for the people who risk their lives everyday to to protect us. The last two election cycles I voted for you because I believed you voted on the merits of each individual issue. This is for our Public Safety Personel and does not involve others. Please keep that in mind.

Council Callis you are trying to muddy the water And confuse the real issue here by your questions about other city departments. You know that the State Legislature passed this as a benefit to (Law Enforcement and Fire Personal Only)simply because of the high incidents of Heart Attacks Stroke And Major illness associated with these occupations. I am a State employee and fully understand why these were passed to benefit public Safety Personnel. (The average life expectancy of Fire and Police Officers is 55 years of Age) Please support this issue.

I think it is a great idea and should be taken one step further. I mean your going to have people strongly for it and people strongly against. But in the end I think it would help the whole town of Portland. Thanks again Jody for helping Portland!! Hat's off