Just a question: who decides which plan the employee is transitioned to? Does the employee stay on the plan they were enrolled in at the time of retirement? This seems like this would be important to be able to stay with the same doctors.

Similar question: does this include covering two-party or family plans?

Where it says “regular, salaried service”…is it referring to full time non exempt employees as well? I’m wondering if they mean only exempt employees will be allowed early retirement…

Especially since it specifically says hourly service will not be credited…and my understanding is, non-exempt employees are considered hourly.

Zeroing out the financial ramp to early retirement is a huge change, made without any stated rationale. Also seems to restrict the institution’s adaptability to changing circumstances.

May I suggest a graduated phase-out of the stipend, something like a 20% annual reduction over five years? Some individuals include the stipend as part of their planning process, the closer to retirement, the more sensitive the plan is to sudden changes. A phased reduction would allow those closer to retirement to better stay on track, while having less impact on those further from retirement.

Under B. Eligibility B – does this mean the full-time hourly employees are not eligible for early retirement even if they meet the years of service?

I have a few questions and suggestions regarding the qualification timeline for a particular benefit. First and foremost, do we know how many people currently qualify for this benefit? I ask because, after working for over 30 years, I have just recently qualified within the last two weeks. This is something I have been diligently working towards for a long time and it would be valuable to understand the broader impact. In light of this, is there any consideration for grandfathering those who qualify by a certain date? I believe this approach would be more equitable for those of us who have dedicated many years to working towards eligibility. As it stands, the timeline for this benefit to be phased out is June 1, 2026. To give both us and the college adequate time to prepare, may I suggest extending the end date to December 30, 2026? This extension would provide a smoother transition period for everyone involved. If we follow all the other USHE Institutions doesn’t that compare our salaries, and benefits with theirs as well. I have always been told that our salaries have been lower on purpose so our benefits can be higher.

I’m concerned that a June 1, 2026 implementation date feels too soon. This change impacts a lot of long-serving employees who have spent years planning their retirement based on the current policy, and a short runway could really disrupt those plans. Even for folks who are still a few years out, this creates uncertainty and anxiety around what they can reasonably expect. Early retirement isn’t something people decide on quickly — it’s usually the result of long-term financial and personal planning. I’d really encourage considering a longer grace period or some form of grandfathering for employees who are already approaching retirement eligibility. Giving people more time and clarity would go a long way toward maintaining trust and stability for both employees and departments.

My concern is that this revision would make SLCC the only degree granting college or university in the state of Utah that does not offer the opportunity of a stipend with early retirement.

I am concerned with the short notice of the June 1, 2026 notice, hopefully there would be grandfathering considerations or exceptions to those who are on track for early retirement. It would be very disheartening for the employees who have dedicated so many years to working for the college to loose out on this benefit by a few months.

3. Definitions
   1. Consider adding “Fees” as referenced in 4.B.1.d.
   2. Consider adding “E&G” as referenced in 4.B.1.d.
4. Procedures
   1. A.3. The committee expressed concern that the wording which states that early retirement approvals are based on the “legitimate needs, wellbeing, and overall mission of the college” is vague and potentially confusing, noting that “legitimate needs” lacks a clear standard and that referencing the college “mission” could unintentionally tie the policy to a formal mission statement that changes over time, creating room for interpretive disagreement. They suggested that the language would be clearer if simplified to “based on the needs of the college” or tied to more flexible concepts such as institutional goals or strategic priorities, which would preserve administrative discretion without binding the policy to evolving mission/vision documents. Overall, the group recommended replacing or clarifying ambiguous terms to strengthen consistency, reduce misunderstandings, and make the approval criteria more operationally grounded.
   2. A.5. The committee felt that the wording “if an employee dies…” is harsh. Consider using “in the event of the early retiree’s death…”
   3. B.1.b. The committee raised questions about the phrase “…related Utah System of Higher Education (USHE) service”, noting that it is unclear what types of prior employment count toward the 15-year service requirement. They wondered whether the policy intends to include only work performed at other USHE colleges and universities, whether employment at the USHE system office would also qualify, or whether the term is meant to encompass broader state or education related employment. Because “related USHE service” is not defined elsewhere, the reviewers felt the language could lead to inconsistent interpretation and suggested that the policy clarify the intended scope by explicitly stating whether it refers solely to other USHE institutions or to both institutions and the USHE office. They also recommended adding a clearer description or examples to ensure consistent application and avoid confusion for employees and administrators.
   4. B.1.d. The committee expressed significant concern about the requirement that an employee’s position be funded through “E&G or Fees” and “reasonably assured of funding,” noting that the wording is unclear and may unintentionally disadvantage employees. [One committee member] questioned how the policy should apply to individuals who have moved between soft money and hard money funding throughout their careers, asking whether the intent is to evaluate only the employee’s current position or their funding history, and whether a percentage-based threshold is needed. [Another committee member] interpreted the clause as referring strictly to the employee’s present funding source but still felt the terminology requires clarification, especially regarding whether “E&G” includes Salt Lake Technical College. Both [committee members] agreed that “E&G” should be formally defined in the policy, and [another committee member] added that “Fees” also needs a definition because many employees do not know how their positions are funded or what “Fees” refers to as a capitalized term. [A committee member] also raised an equity concern: employees in braided funded roles could become ineligible late in their careers through no fault of their own, creating an unfair barrier to early retirement eligibility. The group discussed the likely intent—managing financial risk by ensuring early retirement obligations can be funded without relying on expiring grants—but noted this rationale is not stated, leaving employees who spent part of their careers on grant funding, such as those in TRIO programs, uncertain about how the rule applies to them.
   5. B.1.e. The committee felt that the requirement which instructs employees to “contact their financial advisors…other relevant financial institutions…” before applying for early retirement reads like an exhaustive checklist rather than general guidance. [A committee member] observed that listing multiple categories of advisors and institutions makes it seem as though the policy is mandating each specific contact, even if that is not the intent, and suggested simplifying the language to something broader such as “contact any relevant or interested parties.” [A second committee member] agreed and recommended keeping the examples but signaling that the list is illustrative rather than mandatory, such as by adding “e.g.” or other clarifying phrasing so employees understand they may consult the parties most relevant to their individual circumstances.
   6. B.2. The committee noted that this section lacks practical guidance for employees on how to complete and submit an early retirement application, pointing out that the policy mentions “an early retirement agreement application” but does not link to the form, describe where it is located, or explain the submission process. [A committee member] questioned whether the application is physical or electronic, whether it requires signatures, and what “submit to PWC” actually means in practice, observing that the current wording implies a form exists but does not direct employees to it. He recommended specifying the format and process more clearly. [A committee member] added that it would be helpful to identify the appropriate receiving office, role, or specific unit within People & Workplace Culture so applicants know exactly where and to whom their materials should be submitted.
   7. C.1. The committee raised three main concerns about this section, which lists specific medical and dental plan names and states that the College covers 100% of employer and employee costs. [A committee member] noted that naming specific plan options—such as Focal Point, Value Care Traditional, or HDHP—could create maintenance problems because any future change in plan names or offerings would force a policy amendment. [A committee member] questioned whether the policy’s statement about fully covering medical and dental premiums applies only to the retiree or also extends to dependents who are already on the plan at the time of early retirement, observing that the policy does not explicitly address family coverage. He also flagged a timing issue: employees may enter early retirement as early as age 57, but Medicare eligibility begins at age 65, creating an eight year span where coverage must bridge the gap; although §4.C.2 states benefits end at age 65 or after seven years, [the committee member] wondered whether this structure could result in a coverage gap and whether the policy should clarify how insurance is handled through that entire period.
   8. C.3. The committee found this section unclear because it states that early retirees will be paid out for accrued annual leave “to the maximum allowed by college policy” without identifying which policy governs that maximum. [A committee member] questioned whether the reference was meant to point back to this early retirement policy or another one, while [another committee member] noted that leave accrual and payout rules differ for faculty and staff and asked whether there is an official, applicable policy. [A committee member] located the relevant source—the Vacation and Sick Leave policy—which outlines specific cashout provisions, including caps on vacation payout and requirements for sick leave cashout at retirement, and shared excerpts to illustrate the gap. The committee agreed that this section should directly reference or link to the correct leave policy to avoid ambiguity and ensure employees understand how their final leave payout will be calculated.