Davis County work session outlines proposed HR benefit changes including sick‑leave freeze and reduced 401(k) match

At a Dec. 9 work session, the Board of Davis County Commissioners heard a package of six proposed human resources policy updates staff said are tied to 2026 budget reductions and routine policy housekeeping.

Rick Heavey, identified in the meeting as the county’s Deputy Director of Human Resources, told commissioners the package includes additions and budget-related cuts. Key proposals include three personal preference (floating) days per year that do not accrue or carry over; a freeze of sick‑leave balances as of Dec. 31, 2025 with payout mechanics that staff described as a transition; and a reduction in the county 401(k) employer match from 4% to 2% with automatic enrollment for new hires.

On sick leave, Heavey said current accrued balances as of the freeze date would become each employee’s capped maximum. Under the proposal, when employees separate the county would pay out up to one‑third of that frozen balance. Heavey summarized the intent as a phase‑out and transition mechanism rather than an immediate elimination of existing accrued balances.

Several commissioners asked for examples and clarifications. One commissioner summarized the mechanic: if an employee had 30 accrued sick days on the freeze date, that balance would be the maximum subject to the one‑third payout formula if the employee later leaves. A commissioner cautious about incentives observed that annual buyout or conversion options remain in policy and asked how the county will budget for lump‑sum payroll impacts when employees convert time to cash or vacation.

Commissioner Jeff Hassett (identified during roll call) criticized the payout incentive, saying, "That's kind of a weird incentive to not take sick days," and raised concerns that any cash incentive could encourage employees to work when ill. Heavey said the annual conversion/payout remains in place and agreed to supply data on conversion levels and budget estimates so commissioners can assess fiscal exposure.

On retirement benefits, staff proposed lowering the employer match on 401(k) contributions from 4% to 2% as a budget measure and indicated new employees would be auto‑enrolled at the lower match. Heavey said current employees would remain at their existing matches unless they modified their elections. Heavey also noted the county plans to add a 2% cost‑of‑living adjustment so employees could, if they wished, reallocate that increase to retirement contributions.

Other changes presented included clarifications to insurance policy language — explicitly recognizing that long‑term disability benefits received are taxable income and documenting a longstanding practice of a two‑year partial subsidy to cover benefits — and formally recognizing an existing county practice of contributing half of the high‑deductible plan deductible to employees’ HSAs. The anti‑discrimination and harassment policy was reorganized to codify definitions and a complaint‑investigation process that staff said had been circulated to commissioners in October.

Staff emphasized these updates reflect a mix of cost‑savings moves and routine policy maintenance. Heavey said staff will return with follow‑up information requested by commissioners, including comparative data on which other counties offer similar leave and retirement practices, and budget estimates for conversion/payout exposures. No formal motions or votes were taken at the work session; the package was presented for discussion and follow‑up.

What happens next: commissioners asked HR to provide additional data points (historic conversion rates, budget estimates and peer comparisons) before formal action is scheduled at a future meeting.