Committee weighs amendment to H.519 to let Randolph and two towns’ municipal officers join Group G retirement plan

A House Government Operations & Military Affairs committee on Feb. 20 reviewed an amendment to H.519 that would let municipal law enforcement officers in a small set of towns transfer into Group G of the Vermont State Employees’ Retirement System.

Legislative counsel Tucker Anderson told the committee the proposed language broadens H.519 beyond its original charter focus and could face germaneness challenges on the floor. Cameron Wood of the Office of Legislative Council walked members through the amendment’s mechanics, saying it would amend Title 3 to allow municipal officers employed by municipalities that participate in the state retirement system to be eligible for Group G membership.

Wood and Joint Fiscal Office staff outlined the practical effects: new hires after Jan. 1, 2027, who meet level 2 or 3 law-enforcement certification would be enrolled in Group G; current municipal officers in Group F would be offered a one-time, irrevocable election to transfer to Group G on or before Dec. 1, 2026. Wood said the measure includes differing normal-retirement calculations for cohorts hired before and after 2008 and for hires after 2027.

Participants from Randolph, which recently reconstituted a municipal police force, said the amendment is a recruitment and retention tool. Trini Broussard, Randolph selectboard chair, said the town’s small department needs officers who can perform the full spectrum of duties and that participation in VCERS under the current structure had hamstrung hiring. “This helps us solve part of that puzzle,” a town representative said.

Chief Scott Kluw of the Randolph Police Department described recruitment as the core problem: “It is a recruitment issue,” he said, urging the committee to consider the amendment to help staffing and retention.

Justin, a general counsel who advised the committee, said Group G’s structure can be a recruiting incentive because the benefit multiplier is higher for Group G members (moving from roughly 1.67% to 2.5% of final average compensation in the example discussed). He also said the change is intended to be revenue neutral to the state because Group G members pay higher contributions; the figure cited in committee discussion for the member-rate difference was about 4.68% higher for Group G members.

Joint Fiscal Office staff reminded members that the 2008 ‘‘rule of 87’’ change altered normal-retirement eligibility for hires after that year, which the amendment must accommodate; they also noted precedent in prior legislation that moved corrections officers and deputy sheriffs into Group G while giving incumbent employees an option to transfer.

Members asked whether adding significantly larger or demographically different employee groups in the future (for example, proposals discussed elsewhere to add classified staff from other departments) would require re-running actuarial assumptions; JFO cautioned that a materially larger expansion would change actuarial results.

Several members said they preferred keeping the amendment narrow to the three outlier municipalities mentioned in committee materials (Randolph, Bethel and Danville) to avoid a broader system change. The committee agreed to solicit further testimony (including from the treasurer’s office and retirement division) next week and to consider drafting a committee amendment that preserves a narrow scope.

The committee did not take a formal, recorded vote on H.519 during the session.