The bill amends RCW 41.26.500 (and 2005 c 372 s 2) to change how retirements under plan 2 of the law enforcement officers' and firefighters' retirement system are handled when a retiree is employed in certain "eligible positions" or as a law enforcement officer or firefighter. It generally provides that a retiree under plan 2 is not eligible to receive a monthly retirement allowance while so employed, with exceptions referenced in subsections (3) and (4). If benefits are suspended under this section they are reinstated when the retiree terminates the employment that caused the suspension, and the benefits must be actuarially recomputed pursuant to rules the department is required to adopt. The bill creates procedural options for membership and benefit treatment: a member or retiree who becomes employed in the eligible positions referenced in other RCWs may elect to reenter membership in the corresponding retirement system (which suspends retirement benefits), or decline to elect membership and continue to receive benefits without interruption. A retiree who becomes employed as chief of police of a town or city with fewer than 50,000 people may either reenter membership in plan 2 or remain a retiree, forego service credit, and continue to receive benefits without interruption. These are procedural and benefit-treatment changes rather than criminal or penalty changes. Affected parties include plan 2 members and retirees, persons who become employed in the positions referenced by RCW 41.40.010, 41.32.010, 41.37.010, and 41.35.010, chiefs of police of towns or cities under 50,000 population, the retirement systems for those positions, and the department tasked with rulemaking. The bill was read for the first time on 01/14/26 and referred to the Committee on Appropriations. It is unclear from the provided text which specific department must adopt rules, the exact statutory definitions of "eligible position" and "law enforcement officer or firefighter," the meaning of the referenced override of RCW 41.04.270, any effective date or other implementation deadlines, and how the <50,000 population threshold is to be determined.

If enacted, the bill gives people already retired under plan 2 who take certain public-safety or related jobs a clear choice: they can reenter the retirement system for the new job and have their plan 2 pension suspended, or decline reentry and keep receiving their plan 2 pension without interruption (but without earning new service credit). A chief of police in a town or city under 50,000 people gets the same explicit choice. Any suspended benefits would restart when that employment ends and be recalculated under rules the department must write, which means some retirees may temporarily lose income while working in those positions, or may forgo additional service credit in order to keep steady pension payments. The people most affected are plan 2 retirees who return to work in the listed positions, the retirement systems for those jobs, and the unnamed department that must adopt implementing rules. Agencies will need to do rulemaking and administer suspensions and recomputations, creating administrative work and some implementation cost. The bill’s fiscal effects on pension payments and employer/plan costs are unclear here because the specific definitions of "eligible position," which department will act, how the town/city population cutoff is determined, and any effective date are not provided in the extracted facts.