Oct. 24—Ohio lawmakers are proposing legislation that would increase local governments' contribution to Ohio police officers' pensions from 19.5% to 24% by 2027, bringing it even with the state's firefighters.

This would be costly to local governments. But bill co-sponsors Reps. Cidney Abrams, R-Harrison, and Thomas Hall, R-Madison Twp., told the Ohio House Pension Committee Tuesday that the state has to either increase contributions to the Ohio Police and Fire Pension Fund or cut retirement benefits to Ohio's police and firefighters.

This is due to the pensions board's recent decision to reduce the fund's assumed rate of return from 8% to 7.5% amid volatile economic factors.

Under current law, local governments are required to contribute a the equivalent of 19.5% of each police officer's salary and 24% of each firefighter's salary to the Ohio Police and Fire Pension Fund, which serves over 27,000 active first responders and another 30,000 retirees. House Bill 296 proposes to raise the police officer contribution rate to 24%.

Several committee members raised concerns about how much this mandate would cost local taxpayers, including Rep. Tom Young, R-Washington Twp., who called the proposal "tremendous increase" and asked, "Who's going to pay for this down the road?"

Abrams, a former Cincinnati police officer herself, said the change is necessary to ensure sustainability for the fund and to avoid future disaster. While the Cincinnati-area Republican offered no estimates of how much the change might cost local governments cumulatively, she assured the committee that experts from the Ohio Police and Fire Pension Fund would soon provide more clarity.

This is Abrams' second attempt to increase local governments' contributions to the Ohio Police and Fire Pension Fund. Her first attempt, which sought to raise local contributions to 26% for both police and firefighters, was tabled in committee last year, despite support from the Fraternal Order of Police and the Ohio Association of Professional Fire Fighters. Its most notable opponent was the city of Cleveland.

The Ohio Municipal League opposed the previous measure and said it will again be opposing HB 296 due to the financial burden it places on local governments, which could quickly reach hundreds of thousands of dollars annually.

"It would be an unfunded mandate on the cities and villages that have to cover the employer increase and because of that, they would have to divert money away from the services and projects they normally do," said Bevan Schneck, spokesperson for the Ohio Municipal League.

The Ohio Municipal League has concerns that tying a greater financial burden to the employment of police officers would disincentivize local governments from making new hires. But, for the bill's proponents, increasing local contributions to pensions could attract new recruits and make Ohio a more enticing state to work.

"We believe this could tie directly into the workforce shortage, this could tie directly into getting more people recruited to be a police officer because this is their pension, it's their retirement, it's vital to any job," Hall said in an interview.