Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pension Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board requests comprehensive report on proposal to exempt police chiefs from plan membership
Summary
After lengthy discussion of recruitment, benefit and fiscal issues, the board voted to direct staff to prepare a comprehensive report on a proposal—drawn from a recent bill—to exempt or permit police chiefs to opt out of the board plan referenced in the meeting as 'LEHI 2.'
Jake White, staff to the board, presented an initial consideration on whether police chief positions should be exempt from or given the option to opt out of the plan the meeting referred to as "LEHI 2," with staff noting the topic came from an unpassed bill this legislative session.
White summarized the sponsor’s aim: recruitment and retention concerns for police chief positions in smaller cities. "The issue in front of the board is recruitment and retention of police chiefs may be negatively impact by the positions being mandated into LEFT plan 2," White said. He explained the proposal under discussion would have applied to police chiefs in cities with fewer than 50,000 residents and would not have included sheriffs.
Board members debated potential pros and cons: some said optional or exempt status could expand the candidate pool, allowing a retiree to collect benefits while taking a chief job; others warned of actuarial costs, earlier retirements increasing plan liabilities, and collateral problems such as duty/disability benefits and return-to-work treatment. One member asked how opt-out or exemption would affect duty death and disability benefits; staff said those legal and benefit implications would require further research.
A senator on the board urged in-depth historical context and cautioned that changing membership rules has complex fiscal and political consequences. Several members asked staff to research how similar exemptions or opt‑out options were handled in other plans, the origin of the city-size threshold, and whether the state’s current rules on return-to-work or in-service distributions would interact with any change.
After discussion, a board member moved that staff prepare a comprehensive report evaluating the full range of fiscal, legal and policy consequences; the chair called for a voice vote and the motion carried. The board did not adopt any substantive policy at the meeting; it only directed staff to return a comprehensive report.
