Antonio Ray Harvey | California Black Media
Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed legislation that would have expanded retirement benefits for certain California public safety workers, citing concerns about increased costs and potential risks to the state’s retirement system.
“I’m returning Assembly Bill 1383 without my signature,” Newsom wrote in his veto message to the California State Assembly.
Newsom said the legislation would have partially reversed reforms enacted under the California Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act, or PEPRA, which took effect in 2013.
“This measure would partially reverse some of PEPRA’s reforms and significantly increase state and local government costs,” the governor wrote. “Moreover, by widening the retirement benefit gap between safety members and non-safety members, this measure invites future changes that would expose our retirement system to additional risks.”
Assemblymember Tina McKinnor (D-Inglewood) authored Assembly Bill (AB) 1383.
About 500 California public safety workers gathered at the State Capitol on Sept. 14 to urge Newsom to sign the bill.
Anthony Gamble, a Sacramento Police Department public information officer and media lead, said at the rally that he supported AB 1383 because it would expand retirement benefits. The measure would have lowered from 57 to 55 the age at which qualifying public safety employees could receive the maximum benefit under certain pension formulas.
“For those of us who do the work, AB 1383 is much more than just retirement. It’s about a future of public safety in California,” said Gamble, a director of the Sacramento Police Officers Association. “It creates a more sustainable career path for public safety professionals while giving local governments and labor organizations the ability to negotiate retirement benefits that make sense for the individual communities.”
First responders and labor organizations, including California Professional Firefighters and the Peace Officers Research Association of California, argued that the bill represented an essential investment in the state’s public safety workforce.
AB 1383 would have established new pension formulas for public safety employees first hired on or after Jan. 1, 2027. It also would have allowed unions and government employers to negotiate prospective pension increases of up to 3% of an employee’s final compensation for each year of service at age 55. The maximum formula under PEPRA is 2.7% at age 57.
Labor groups maintained that the changes would help address recruitment and retention challenges as interest in first responder careers has declined.
At a June 24 hearing of the Senate Labor, Public Employment and Retirement Committee, McKinnor argued that stronger retirement benefits were necessary to help public agencies remain competitive and attract new talent. The bill also would have allowed employers and unions to negotiate pension formulas and cost-sharing arrangements.
“AB 1383 does not grant retroactive retirement benefit increases or pension holidays, and it does not change other necessary and appropriate PEPRA guardrails,” McKinnor said. “AB 1383 only applies prospectively, recognizing the ongoing challenges and dedication of our firefighters, police, and the unique challenges and risks associated with a career as a first responder.”
According to the Public Policy Institute of California, California law enforcement agencies employed more than 119,400 full-time workers in 2024, including approximately 77,200 sworn officers with full arrest powers and 42,200 civilian employees.
California cities spent more than $16.4 billion on policing in the 2023-24 fiscal year, while counties spent $8.4 billion. The state spent an additional $3 billion on the California Highway Patrol.
Although law enforcement hiring has increased modestly in recent years, statewide sworn law enforcement staffing remained about 3% below its 2019 level, according to PPIC.
“AB 1383 represents our need to recruit and retain the next generation of first responders needed to protect the lives and property of residents across California,” McKinnor said.
PPIC data show that Black officers accounted for about 5% of California’s approximately 77,200 sworn officers in 2024, or an estimated 3,860 officers.
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, known as CAL FIRE, was among the state agencies employing public safety personnel who could have been affected by the legislation.
“This bill is about giving local agencies another tool to compete for talented employees, retain experienced public safety professionals, and build a workforce necessary to protect their communities,” Gamble said.
Local government coalitions, the California Department of Finance and taxpayer advocacy groups opposed the bill. They argued that it would have significantly increased costs by creating billions of dollars in long-term pension liabilities for state and local governments.
The California State Association of Counties, which represents county governments statewide, had urged Newsom to veto the legislation. The organization said AB 1383 would increase required contributions from government employers and some workers covered by PEPRA.
According to estimates cited by CSAC from the Department of Finance and the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, the bill could have cost participating cities and counties between $4 billion and $7.4 billion over several decades, placing additional pressure on state, school and local government retirement plans.
“This bill is just too expensive. It could lead to cuts to public services — including, ironically, public safety,” said Ben Adler, CSAC’s director of public affairs. “That’s why the governor’s own Department of Finance opposes this bill, and it’s why we’re asking him to veto it.”
In his veto message, Newsom recalled the financial and political pressure that led lawmakers to adopt PEPRA in 2012, including calls to eliminate defined-benefit retirement plans for public employees.
“I still recall before PEPRA’s passage in 2012 the alarming forecasts, the fears, criticism of public employees and the growing pressure to eliminate defined benefit plans altogether,” Newsom wrote.
“This is an era of California history I do not want to repeat,” he added. “I fear that undoing PEPRA reforms, even partially, risks us doing exactly that. For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.”
