Committee hears bill to pay $6,000 retention bonus to officers after four years; supporters say it aids rural recruitment, critics cite funding uncertainty

The House Political Subdivisions Committee conducted a public hearing on a bill to establish a $6,000 annual retention bonus for peace officers and correctional officers who have been continuously employed by the same agency for at least four years. Sponsor Representative Steve Vetter said the program would target retention and rural recruitment by giving a $6,000 bonus, beginning May 1 each year after an officer completes at least four consecutive years with the same agency.

Vetter said the bonus is intended to be a fixed $6,000 payment and not a merit-based or “up to” amount. “It’s intended to be a $6,000 bonus beginning after your four years of service,” he told the committee. He described the proposal as a workforce tool to reduce poaching between agencies and to make North Dakota more competitive with neighboring states.

Support and numbers cited Representatives of county and law-enforcement groups expressed support. Danelle Presky of the North Dakota Association of Counties, who also serves as executive director for the North Dakota Sheriffs and Deputies Association in that role, said the county association and sheriffs support the bill and asked the committee to consider program design details. Presky supplied several data points from state licensing and county payrolls: the North Dakota Peace Officers’ Standards and Training Board lists 2,816 licensed officers statewide (a number she said does not include local correctional officers or Department of Corrections staff); at the county level she said there were about 1,260 county employees broken down as roughly 735 licensed officers and 525 correctional officers.

Presky also noted a potential mismatch between the appropriation in the bill and the number of people who might qualify. “If you divide $8,400,000 by $6,000, that would benefit only about 1,400 people,” she told the committee, flagging a possible underfunding risk if many officers already meet the four-year threshold. Several sheriffs and chiefs — including Blair Thorson of the North Dakota Peace Officers Association, Sheriff Roger Hutchison of Renville County and Stephanie Ingerbretson of the Chiefs of Police Association — told the committee that local departments are struggling to recruit and retain officers and welcomed a state-level tool.

Committee questions and implementation issues Members asked for detail about eligibility, timing and administration. Representative Clameen and others asked whether the bonus applies immediately to officers who already meet the four-year threshold; Vetter said the clock starts from each officer’s date of hire with their respective agency and that officers already hired more than four years ago would qualify. Representative Clameen questioned the “up to $6,000” phrasing in the draft; Vetter agreed the bill should be revised to state a fixed $6,000.

Committee members also discussed whether the appropriation is a continuing appropriation or a one-time funding item and how the program would be administered. Vetter said he expected the program could continue if future legislatures appropriated funds, but that the bill itself cannot bind future legislatures to maintain the program. Witnesses noted prior experience with the “Back the Blue” grant program (House Bill 1307 in 2023), which allocated funds to local agencies with discretion on distribution. Presky and chiefs suggested local discretion for chiefs and sheriffs to distribute funds to their departments, while some legislators asked for clearer statewide administration rules. Several members asked the sponsor to provide more precise counts of officers who would be eligible, noting that the post board and other agencies do not currently track four-year service counts by agency in a way that aligns with the fiscal note.

What was not decided The committee did not take a vote on the bill during this hearing. Members asked for additional data on the number of officers who would be immediately eligible and for a clearer, itemized fiscal note showing initial surge costs versus steady-state costs.

Why it matters Supporters argued the fixed $6,000 payment is a simple, visible retention incentive that could be particularly effective in smaller and rural departments that cannot match pay offered by larger agencies. Opponents and skeptics warned that the appropriation shown in testimony may not cover all eligible officers and asked the committee to consider program design to avoid unintended distribution or fiscal shortfalls.