BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 226|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 226
Author: Torrico (D)
Amended: 8/20/10 in Senate
Vote: 21
PRIOR VOTES NOT RELEVANT
SUBJECT : County employees retirement: compensation
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : Senate Floor Amendments of 8/20/10 delete the
contents of the bill relating to the California Coastal Act
of 1976.
This bill now clarifies the characterization of
compensation paid to a retiring member that was deferred or
modified based on concessions in an executed collective
bargaining agreement between the County of Sacramento and a
county employee bargaining unit between July 1, 2010 and
September 1, 2010; and allows implementation of the
memorandum of understanding between Sacramento County and
the Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs' Association (SCDSA)
which represents approximately 1,150 safety employees and
the Law Enforcement Management Association (LEMA) which
represents approximately 94 safety employees.
ANALYSIS : Under existing law, counties and districts may
provide retirement benefits to their employees pursuant to
the County Employees Retirement Law of 1937. The Law
CONTINUED
AB 226
Page
2
specifies the minimum ages and years of service that are
required in order to become eligible for retirement. That
law generally permits the board of supervisors of a county
or the governing board of a district, by resolution adopted
by majority vote and pursuant to a memorandum of
understanding, as specified, to make certain formulas for
the calculation of benefits for its members based on their
classification.
The bill provides that compensation paid to a retiring
member to restore compensation the member would have been
entitled to receive pursuant to a collective bargaining
agreement fully executed on or before July 1, 2010, that
was subsequently deferred or otherwise modified as a result
of a concessionary amendment executed prior to September 1,
2010, shall be considered compensation earnable and not be
deemed to have been paid for the purpose of enhancing a
member's retirement benefit.
This bill authorizes the board of supervisors of the County
of Sacramento, by resolution, adopted by majority vote, as
part of a negotiated memorandum of understanding with a
bargaining unit that represents safety members to require
safety employees of that bargaining unit and unrepresented
safety employees, first hired after approval of the
resolution, to receive a specified pension calculation that
applies to safety members and that computes final
compensation based upon the average annual compensation
earnable during a specified 3-year period.
This bill:
1.Provides that compensation paid to a retiring member to
restore compensation the member would have been entitled
to receive pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement
executed on or before July 1, 2010, that was subsequently
deferred or otherwise modified as a result of a
concessionary amendment executed prior to September 1,
2010, must be considered pay rate or salary and not
considered to have been paid for the purpose of enhancing
a member's retirement benefits.
2.Ratifies an agreement between the County of Sacramento
and the SCDSA and the LEMA. More specifically, the
AB 226
Page
3
agreement:
? Changes the retirement tier for safety employees
from 3% at age 50 to 3% at age 55;
? Maintains the 3-year highest compensation average
and statutory cost-of-living-adjustment up to a 2%;
? Implements a new safety tier for employees who
first become members of the retirement system
following ratification of the agreement;
? Provides for the doubling of the employee
contribution for represented members of the SCDSA;
According to the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors,
these agreements are fully funded by employee give backs
and should not result in increased long term liability for
the County.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
RJG:nl 8/23/10 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: NONE RECEIVED
**** END ****