Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Pensions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sheriff urges switch to law-enforcement retirement plan; commissioners told county's employer contribution would more than double
Summary
During budget hearings at the June 16 Chase County commissioners meeting, the sheriff recommended moving sworn officers from KPERS to the KP&F law-enforcement retirement plan. The sheriff described larger employer contributions and argued the change would help recruit and retain deputies.
The sheriff told Chase County commissioners at their June 16 budget meeting that moving the department's sworn officers from KPERS to the KP&F (law-enforcement) retirement plan would raise employer contributions from roughly 9% to about 22.86% of salary but would provide a larger retirement benefit and enhanced death-and-disability coverage.
Why it matters: The change would increase the county's retirement costs for sworn staff substantially. The sheriff said higher county costs could be offset by improved retention and reduced recruiting and training expenses when deputies leave for larger agencies.
The sheriff presented figures showing an increase in employer contributions from about $34,982 (under KPERS, for the listed deputies) to $88,855 under KP&F for the same staff sample, an increase of roughly $53,000 for the positions reviewed. The sheriff also noted employee contributions would rise, and vesting rules would change from five years to 15 years under the KP&F plan.
The sheriff told commissioners that KP&F includes a life-insurance component that can benefit survivors and that, once adopted, the county resolution would be irrevocable for officers enrolled under the new plan. He said the change would take effect January 1 if adopted in the budget process.
Commissioners asked about implementation mechanics and whether costs could be partially shifted within departmental budgets. The sheriff offered to adjust proposed merit increases or use non-budgeted law-enforcement funds to help offset the first-year cost.
The transcript records no final decision during the June 16 meeting; the item was presented as a budget proposal for further consideration.
What the record shows: The sheriff explicitly recommended the change and provided per-employee cost estimates drawn from recent hires and salary projections. Commissioners requested time to evaluate the fiscal impact and review options for offsets in other sheriff-office funds.
