Skip to main content

SB 6324

In Committee

Senate

LEOFF 2/standby pay

Including standby pay as basic salary in the law enforcement officers' and firefighters' retirement system plan 2.

This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.

How does a bill become law?
  1. Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
  2. Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
  3. Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
  4. Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
  5. Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
  6. Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
Introduced: January 27, 2026
Last Action: January 28, 2026
Status: S Ways & Means
Companion Bill:

AI Analysis

This analysis was generated by AI and may contain errors. It is not legal advice. Always refer to the official bill text for authoritative information.
People & CommunitiesPeople-leaningCorporate & Wealthy Interests

This bill adds standby pay—compensation for time when law enforcement officers and firefighters are on call but not actively working—to the definition of basic salary for LEOFF Plan 2 members. This means standby pay will be included when calculating retirement benefits and contributions, potentially increasing retirement payouts and required contributions.

  • Revises the definition of 'basic salary' for LEOFF Plan 2 members to explicitly include compensation received for being in standby status.
  • Defines 'standby status' as time when a member is not actively working but is required by the employer to be prepared to report immediately for work if needed—even if no work actually occurs.
  • Clarifies that standby pay is included in basic salary unless specifically excluded (e.g., lump-sum payments for unused leave or severance).
  • Reenacts and amends RCW 41.26.030 to ensure standby pay is treated as part of basic salary for retirement benefit calculations.
  • Maintains existing exclusions from basic salary (e.g., unused sick, vacation, or annual leave payouts).

Who is affected

  • Law enforcement officers and firefighters in LEOFF Plan 2LEOFF Plan 2 members who receive standby pay will now have that pay included in their 'basic salary,' which affects retirement benefit calculations and contributions.
  • Local government employers and fire districtsEmployers (cities, counties, fire districts, etc.) will need to adjust payroll and retirement contribution calculations to include standby pay as part of basic salary, potentially increasing employer contribution amounts.
  • LEOFF Plan 2 retirees and near-retireesRetirees and future retirees in LEOFF Plan 2 may see higher retirement benefits if their highest-earning months included significant standby pay, since 'final average salary' is based on basic salary.
  • On-call or standby personnel in fire and law enforcementMembers who work standby shifts (e.g., on-call firefighters or officers required to remain available for immediate response) will see their retirement benefits tied more closely to actual compensation received, including on-call time.
Effective: July 28, 2026Fiscal impact: The bill may increase retirement system costs over time, as standby pay becomes part of basic salary and raises the calculation of retirement benefits and employer/employee contributions. The exact fiscal impact depends on how much standby pay is earned and how often it appears in members' highest-earning months.
Model: Intel/Qwen3-Coder-Next-int4-AutoRoundGenerated: Mar 20, 2026 at 2:59 AM

Pro/Con Analysis

Potential Benefits (4)
  • Law enforcement officers and firefighters who receive standby pay will see their retirement benefits increase because standby time is now part of 'basic salary'—correcting a long-standing inequity where on-call time was excluded despite being mandatory and time-intensive.

    FinancialPeopleRef: RCW 41.26.030(2)(b)(i)(B)
  • The bill strengthens fairness in retirement benefit accrual by aligning benefit calculations with actual compensation received—including on-call time—ensuring that workers who sacrifice personal time for public safety are not penalized in retirement.

    Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: RCW 41.26.030(2)(b)(i)(B)
  • Recognizing standby pay in retirement calculations may improve recruitment and retention of on-call personnel—especially in volunteer or hybrid fire departments—by making public safety careers more financially sustainable over the long term.

    Public SafetyPeopleRef: RCW 41.26.030(2)(b)(i)(B)
  • The bill clarifies that standby pay is included unless specifically excluded (e.g., lump-sum leave payouts), reducing ambiguity for employers and employees and promoting consistent application across jurisdictions.

    Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: RCW 41.26.030(2)(b)(i)(B)
Potential Concerns (5)
  • Increases in retirement benefit calculations will raise annual pension payouts for LEOFF Plan 2 retirees, but this is funded by higher employer and employee contributions—costs that are passed on to local governments and taxpayers, not offset by new revenue, straining municipal budgets that already face pressure on public safety staffing and infrastructure.

    FinancialPeopleRef: RCW 41.26.030(2)(b)(i)(B)
  • Local governments (cities, counties, fire districts) will face higher payroll-related retirement contributions—estimated at 20–30% of standby pay—reducing funds available for hiring new officers and firefighters, maintaining equipment, or expanding services, especially in smaller or fiscally strained jurisdictions.

    Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: RCW 41.26.030(2)(b)(i)(B)
  • Higher employer contribution costs may incentivize departments to reduce standby shifts or limit on-call staffing to control costs, potentially weakening emergency response capacity in rural or under-resourced areas where standby arrangements are critical for coverage.

    Public SafetyPeopleRef: RCW 41.26.030(2)(b)(i)(B)
  • The bill does not include any state funding to offset increased LEOFF costs; instead, the full burden falls on local governments, which may respond by cutting non-retirement public safety line items or raising local taxes—hurting service quality and affordability for residents.

    FinancialLean peopleRef: RCW 41.26.030(2)(b)(i)(B)
  • If local governments respond to higher LEOFF costs by cutting services or raising property taxes, affordability pressures on working- and middle-class households—especially in high-cost urban areas—will increase, indirectly affecting housing stability.

    HousingLean peopleRef: RCW 41.26.030(2)(b)(i)(B)

Who Is Most Affected

Active-duty law enforcement officers and firefighters in LEOFF Plan 2Positive Impact

LEOFF Plan 2 members who regularly work standby shifts—especially those in fire departments with on-call schedules—will see higher retirement benefits, improving long-term financial security. This benefit is concentrated among active-duty personnel who actually earn standby pay, not retirees.

Local government employers and fire districtsNegative Impact

Local governments (cities, counties, fire districts) will face higher employer contribution costs—potentially millions of dollars statewide—without new revenue to offset the increase, straining already tight budgets and potentially reducing hiring or service levels.

LEOFF Plan 2 retirees and near-retireesMixed Impact

Retirees and near-retirees who had significant standby pay in their highest-earning months will see higher monthly benefits, but those who retired before the change or worked in agencies that rarely used standby pay may see little or no benefit.

On-call or standby personnel in fire and law enforcementPositive Impact

On-call firefighters and officers—especially in rural or volunteer departments where standby coverage is essential for 24/7 response—will benefit most, as their compensation now more accurately reflects time required for emergency readiness.

General public / taxpayersNegative Impact

Taxpayers and residents of small or fiscally strained jurisdictions may face higher local taxes or reduced services if municipalities cut non-retirement line items to cover increased LEOFF contributions.

Sponsors

Senator Holy(Republican)District 6Primary
Senator Conway(Democrat)District 29Secondary
Senator Dozier(Republican)District 16Secondary
Senator Nobles(Democrat)District 28Secondary
Senator Valdez(Democrat)District 46Secondary