Rep. Chuck Kopp introduces bill to raise occupational disability pay for peace officers and firefighters; committee asks for actuarial and implementation detail

Representative Chuck Kopp introduced House Bill 210 to the House Finance Committee and described it as a targeted statutory adjustment to occupational disability benefits for peace officers and firefighters who are permanently injured in the line of duty.

Kopp said the bill would not restructure retirement plans or expand eligibility; instead it would adjust the occupational disability benefit level within existing law. He told members that current law provides 40% of base pay for occupational disability at separation and that many public safety employees who suffer career‑ending injuries face large income and coverage losses. "You can have a public safety officer who has 17, 18 years of service ... and they go on disability and they lose their health care and they lose 60% of their income," Kopp said.

Kopp said the bill’s mechanism leaves the first 12 months unchanged at the current 40% level; after a medical review board confirms permanent disability at the annual review, eligible members would move to a higher benefit level. In his presentation he referred to a move to 75% after that first year; committee discussion at points referenced a 70% figure in slides and answers. Kopp and staff said actuarial modeling (completed by the Alaska Retirement Management Board and the plan actuary) indicates the disability and retiree health trusts remain well funded under modeled increases, and that the affected population is small — about 12 defined‑contribution public safety employees and 4 in the defined‑benefit plan (16 total beneficiaries currently on occupational disability).

Committee members asked clarifying questions the bill does not itself change health‑care coverage for people in the defined‑contribution plan (they currently lose employer health coverage on separation); Kopp acknowledged that the bill increases cash benefits but said health‑care questions were outside this bill’s scope. Committee staff (Julia O'Connor) confirmed the draft would apply to members currently on disability going forward (retroactive in the sense of covering current beneficiaries) but would not include back pay for prior years. Brandon Rensberg, retirement manager at the Division of Retirement Benefits, answered technical questions about disability determinations and comparable positions and said that taking non‑comparable work (for example, a low‑demand desk job) generally does not reduce occupational disability benefits if the job is not a comparable position.

Members pressed whether the proposal should cover all occupational disabilities across state employee classes; Kopp said the bill is a narrow first step and noted another pending bill (HB 378) addressing broader reforms. Representatives also requested more actuarial detail, a list of comparable positions and clearer language about whether and how the health trust would be affected. The committee set the bill aside at the end of the hearing; no action or vote was taken.