AN ACT to amend and reenact sections 54-52-01, 54-52-02.15, 54-52-06.4, and 54-52-17 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to membership of the public employees retirement system public safety retirement plan.
HB 1274 revises North Dakota’s Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) statutes, with the main focus on retirement plan membership and eligibility rules. The bill closes the PERS defined benefit main plan to new eligible employees beginning January 1, 2025, and generally moves new hires into the defined contribution plan under chapter 54-52.6. Employees already participating or deferred in the defined benefit plan before that date remain in that plan, even if later rehired. The bill also preserves separate treatment for members of the law enforcement/public safety plan, judges’ plan, highway patrol plan, teachers’ fund for retirement, and the university system alternative retirement program.
The bill makes several technical and substantive updates to the public safety retirement provisions. It clarifies definitions for peace officers, correctional officers, firefighters, and related employees, including work-hour thresholds and restrictions on concurrent participation in other PERS plans for certain public safety members. It also updates contribution rules for state peace officers, correctional officers, and National Guard security officers, including scheduled increases for some peace officer contributions beginning in 2024 and 2025. In addition, it revises retirement eligibility, benefit formulas, disability retirement, survivor benefits, and optional benefit forms under the public safety retirement plan, while keeping the board’s rulemaking authority to administer the system.
The bill’s impact on state law is to restructure how new state and participating-governmental-unit employees enter retirement coverage, shifting the default for most new hires from the defined benefit main plan to the defined contribution plan. It also refines the statutory framework for public safety retirement members by adjusting eligibility, contribution rates, and benefit calculations for peace officers, correctional officers, firefighters, judges, and National Guard security personnel. These changes affect the Public Employees Retirement System, participating employers, and current and future employees covered by the affected retirement chapters.
Overall sentiment appears strongly favorable. The bill passed the House by a wide margin, 71-19, and the Senate unanimously, 47-0, indicating broad legislative support for the retirement system changes. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate in the supplied materials, but the voting pattern suggests the measure was viewed as a significant but generally acceptable retirement-policy update.
The main point of contention is likely the closure of the defined benefit main plan to new hires and the shift to a defined contribution structure, which can be controversial because it changes retirement security and long-term employer costs. Another possible area of concern is the detailed treatment of public safety employees, including contribution increases and restrictions on dual membership in multiple PERS plans. The House’s 19 negative votes suggest some opposition remained, likely centered on the retirement design change rather than the technical updates to public safety provisions.
HB 1274 amends multiple sections of the North Dakota Century Code governing PERS, primarily by closing the defined benefit main plan to new eligible employees after December 31, 2024 and directing most new hires into the defined contribution plan. It also updates statutory definitions and eligibility rules for public safety members, revises contribution rates for certain peace officers and correctional officers, and adjusts retirement, disability, survivor, and optional benefit provisions. The bill affects the Public Employees Retirement System, participating governmental units, and employees covered by the main plan and public safety retirement plan.
The bill appears to have received broad support in the Legislature. It passed the House 71-19 and the Senate 47-0, suggesting that most lawmakers agreed with the retirement system changes even if some House members opposed them. Because no committee transcripts were provided, there is no direct record of debate, but the voting history indicates a generally favorable sentiment toward the measure.
The most likely point of contention is the policy shift away from the defined benefit main plan for new hires and into the defined contribution plan, a change that can raise concerns about retirement adequacy for employees and the long-term structure of public retirement benefits. Additional friction may have involved the bill’s public safety provisions, including contribution increases, eligibility thresholds, and limits on concurrent participation in other PERS plans. The 19 House no votes suggest some resistance, but the unanimous Senate vote indicates that opposition was limited and did not prevent passage.