Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pensions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Representative Barry Hovis introduces technical fix to Kansas City police retirement language
Summary
Representative Barry Hovis told the House Committee on Pensions that House Bill 3479 would correct a single-word drafting error in Kansas City police retirement rules so the threshold reads '35 years of service or to the age of 65' rather than the erroneous phrasing that could extend service far beyond intended limits. No witnesses testified and no vote was taken.
Representative Barry Hovis introduced House Bill 3479 to the Committee on Pensions as a technical correction to language affecting Kansas City police retirement rules.
Hovis told the committee the bill replaces one word in an earlier change so the intended standard reads that officers are eligible after '35 years of service or to the age of 65, whichever occurs first.' "This is a technical fix. We're changing 1 word. It was a mistake that I did not catch last year," Hovis said.
The sponsor explained the problem: Kansas City had raised its retirement age from 60 to 65 when the earlier change passed, and the erroneous text used the phrase "whichever occurs later," which Hovis said could produce unintended results. "Because when it says whichever occurs later, then you could start at 60, and then you could work 35 years, which would make you 95 because it occurred later," he said.
Representative Bromley questioned why the system used a 35-year service threshold alongside an age cap, saying the combination could force someone to retire far earlier or allow service beyond what seems logical. "When you have a pension system and they mandate, it sounds to me like they mandate you retire after 35 years, which that person could be 57," she said. Hovis acknowledged he did not have the underlying rationale from the retirement system at the hearing and said he would seek that information.
Representative Haley commented that many long-serving officers remain fit for duty and that the legislature should consider using the experience of older officers when appropriate. Hovis responded with an example of a long-serving officer who remained active into his late 60s.
Committee staff called for witnesses in support or opposition; no members of the public came forward to testify. The committee concluded the public hearing on House Bill 3479 without taking action; Hovis said he would follow up with the retirement system to clarify the 35-year provision ahead of any further consideration.
The public hearing record shows no votes or motions on HB 3479 and no witnesses provided testimony at this session.
