Firefighter age bill stalled despite union backing

By Catrina Barker | The Center Square contributor
The Center Square

(The Center Square) – A proposed Illinois bill aimed at addressing firefighter shortages by lowering the minimum hiring age has stalled in the legislature after failing to be called before a key deadline.

State Rep. Jed Davis, R-Yorkville, is behind House Bill 1098, which would amend the state’s municipal code and Fire Protection District Act to allow individuals as young as 18 to serve as full-time firefighters.

Current law requires firefighters to be at least 21 years old.

Davis said the measure is designed to tackle ongoing staffing shortages while opening the door for younger adults seeking alternatives to college.

“There’s a huge shortage,” Davis told The Center Square. “We’re losing young people between 18 and 21 to other trades and opportunities because they simply can’t take these jobs.”

Davis argues that 18-year-olds are already entrusted with high-responsibility roles, including military service, making the current restriction inconsistent.

“We’ll send them into war, but we won’t send them into a neighbor’s home to save a life,” he said.

Under the proposal, training and certification requirements would remain unchanged. Davis emphasized that firefighting and emergency medical roles already require rigorous preparation, noting that not all candidates successfully complete the necessary programs.

“These aren’t jobs you just walk into,” he said. “The people who qualify are trained, certified, and ready.”

The bill also includes a pension-related provision, allowing firefighters who complete 30 years of service before age 55 to retire without penalty – an adjustment tied to the proposed lower hiring age.

Despite backing from firefighter unions, which Davis said he secured while drafting the legislation, the bill has yet to gain traction in Springfield. It currently sits in committee and was not called before lawmakers adjourned for spring break.

Davis expressed frustration with the lack of movement, arguing the measure has broad appeal and could easily gain bipartisan support if brought forward.

“You can say you care about filling shortages,” he said, “but when legislation like this isn’t even called, it contradicts that message.”

Davis said he was later told the proposal would be folded into a larger omnibus package, which ultimately did not move forward.

The bill was reintroduced this session and assigned to a different committee, where it again failed to be called before the legislative deadline.

“Last session it was in the Police and Fire Committee, and I had the chairman’s word saying, ‘Hey, we’ll call your bill if you get agreement with the union,’” Davis said. “I got agreement with the union, we filed an amendment, and he said, ‘Good job, we’re calling your bill tomorrow.’ Then about eight hours before, I got notice they pulled it.”