Beaumont and representatives of the firefighters’ bargaining unit met in a multi‑day bargaining session to discuss wages, pension contributions and recruitment measures, with each side presenting competing compensation packages and comparable‑city data.

The union pressed for a larger overall pay increase, citing recruitment and retention problems; the union said it had proposed a 24% package. The city countered with a smaller offer that it said keeps Beaumont competitive in the regional market while addressing pension funding. City negotiators described a proposal that would shift 2 percentage points previously earmarked for the pension into direct wage increases (in effect presenting a 16% total wage package instead of a prior 14% plus 2% for pension). The parties did not reach a final agreement at the session’s close and scheduled additional bargaining.

Why it matters: pay and pension affect recruitment, retention, and the city’s budget and creditability. Negotiators on both sides said vacancies and turnover were central to the talks. The union cited recent retirements and resignations and described a shortfall of sworn personnel; city officials said some vacancy counts differed and that additional hires already are budgeted.

Key details and positions
- Union position: The union repeatedly said it was seeking substantially larger raises to address retention and recruitment. A union negotiator said the department has a retention problem and proposed a higher overall percentage to make Beaumont competitive with other departments.
- City position: City negotiators said their comparable‑city analysis (Temple, Tyler, Abilene, Waco and Edinburg) and median household income data showed Beaumont’s proposed package would remain competitive without adopting some of the higher suburban Dallas/Austin comps the union submitted. The city also emphasized pension funding and cited an actuarial packet presented in 2024 as the basis for earlier contribution levels.
- Pension: The union repeatedly stated that it is not the pension board and that pension changes historically have come through the pension board and actuarial recommendations. A union negotiator said, “we’re not the pension board,” to underline the union’s position that membership on the pension board and pension contributions are separate from collective bargaining. The city proposed language to remove pension contribution terms from the contract and to add a recognition‑clause sentence making clear that discussions between the city and the pension board do not constitute bargaining under the CBA.

Points of dispute and follow‑up items
- Comps and methodology: The union used a set of suburban comparables tied to Dallas and other higher‑income areas; the city argued those raise an inappropriate benchmark and presented an alternate list based on population, proximity and median household income. Both sides agreed to exchange and review city lists of comparables.
- Vacancy counts: The two sides differed on the number of current vacancies (participants cited figures of 12, 17 and 19 at different times). Neither side provided a single verified roster during the session; both agreed to confirm the exact vacancy counts before continuing bargaining.
- Tradeoffs: The city offered to reallocate some proposed pension contribution increases into direct wages in order to increase take‑home pay for members; the union disputed whether pension contribution changes could be separated from bargaining absent pension board action.

Next steps: Negotiators agreed to reconvene and to exchange supporting documents (comps lists, vacancy reports and pension actuarial materials). No formal agreement or vote was recorded at the session.