House Veterans Committee backs bill clarifying police vacation accrual under KRS 95.495

At the third meeting of the February 2025 session, the House Standing Committee on Veterans, Military Affairs and Public Protection voted to give House Bill 369 a favorable recommendation, moving the bill to the next House committee with a positive committee report.

The bill aims to clarify an ambiguity in KRS 95.495 about how police officers accrue vacation or annual leave. Proponents told the committee the statute currently specifies that officers accrue 15 days a year but does not set out whether that accrual is monthly, hourly or otherwise; HB 369 would establish parameters for how that time may be accrued.

Representative Hart introduced the measure and yielded time to witnesses from law enforcement. "I'm Sean Butler with the Kentucky Police Chiefs Association," Butler said when introducing himself to the committee, noting the association's support. Todd Kelly, chief of police in Ashland, told the committee, "the police chiefs supports this, and this will, help police chiefs and and local agencies be able to define how vacation or vacation leave is done, without any question."

Representative Blanton asked whether the issue was currently set out in statute or handled through the retirement system. Representative Hart replied that the provision is "currently laid out in KRS 95.495." Representative Moore asked whether defining accrual would limit an officer's ability to take leave early in the year or in an emergency; Hart and Chief Kelly responded that the bill allows local governments or police departments to establish policy and discretionary rules, and "those things can be taken into consideration," so the change should not prevent use of leave in emergencies.

A motion and second were recorded on the bill (mover and seconder not specified in the transcript). The committee conducted a roll call and recorded affirmative votes from multiple members. Chair Jeremy McCool announced, "House bill 3 69 passes with favorable expression and should do the same in House 4." Representative Maddox later asked to be recorded present and as a yes vote.

The committee record does not specify detailed implementing language within the bill text in this hearing; committee members and witnesses confined remarks to the purpose of clarifying accrual mechanics and to assurances that local policy authority remains. The bill now advances with a favorable report to the next House committee listed in the record.

Looking ahead, the committee indicated the measure will proceed to the next committee (referred to in the record as "House 4"). No amendments or opposing motions were recorded during the committee's consideration.