The Retirement and Independent Entities Committee voted unanimously to adopt its 2025 list of study items and to add two items proposed by members: a review of whether to phase new employees into a defined-contribution-only retirement program and a study of processing time for retirement applications.

The study list as presented by Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel staff included multiple URS-related items—administrative and technical modifications to Title 49, an overview of URS and its annual reports, the AURUS recordkeeping upgrade, the line-of-duty death benefit discussion, and preliminary contribution-rate review. Representative Kristofferson proposed adding a review of phasing out defined benefits for new employees. "Maybe we ought to phase out of the defined benefit program and just have new employees just go on the defined contribution program," Kristofferson said.

Representative Thurston moved to add that study item; the committee voted in favor and later also approved adding processing time for retirement applications after noting potential follow-up from the Rules Review and Government Oversight Committee. "I would move that we add, processing time for post retirement receipt of benefits to our study list," Thurston said; the motion passed by voice vote.

Committee members clarified what a defined-contribution-only transition would mean in practice and asked URS staff to present comparative analyses. URS and other speakers explained the trade-offs: defined-contribution plans are administratively simpler and shift long-term investment risk to members, while defined-benefit plans spread longevity and investment risk across a large pool of members and employers. URS staff emphasized the policy choice underlying benefit design: “What is the problem you’re trying to solve?” they said, noting Utah’s previous tier 2 reforms and the long time horizon for pension impacts.

Formal committee action: the committee adopted the study-item list (including previously proposed items such as the line-of-duty benefit review) and approved the two additions by unanimous voice vote. The committee also asked staff to report back on processing-time work already considered by other committees and to bring any necessary policy proposals back to the committee for consideration.

Next steps noted in the meeting included URS presentations on funding status and actuarial assumptions later in the year, and staff follow-up on both the defined-contribution-versus-defined-benefit analysis and the processing-time review for retirement applications.