BILL ANALYSIS
AB 226
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 226 (Torrico)
As Amended August 27, 2010
2/3 vote. Urgency
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: | |(June 1, 2009) |SENATE: |27-8 |(August 30, |
| | | | | |2010) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
(vote not relevant)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|COMMITTEE VOTE: |6-0 |(August 30, 2010) |RECOMMENDATION: |Concur |
| | | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: NAT. RES.
SUMMARY : Clarifies that compensation paid to a retiring member of
a retirement system that was deferred based on concessions agreed
to in a collective bargaining agreement will be considered
compensation earnable, as specified, and implements the retirement
provisions of a recently negotiated bargaining agreement between
Sacramento County and the Sacramento County Deputy Sheriff's
Association (SCDSA).
The Senate amendments delete the Assembly version of the bill, and
instead:
1)Provide that compensation paid to a retiring member of a
retirement system established pursuant to the County Employees'
Retirement Law of 1937 ('37 Act) 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)Allows the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors, as part of an
approved memorandum of understanding, to require safety employees
of that bargaining unit first hired after the approval of the
AB 226
Page 2
resolution to be covered by the 3% at 55 retirement formula
rather than the current 3% at 50 formula. The Board of
Supervisors may also apply this provision to an unrepresented
safety employee first hired after the approval of the resolution.
3)Allows the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors, by resolution
as specified, to provide different retirement formulas for new
members in one safety bargaining unit or other new unrepresented
safety employees than is provided for new safety members of other
bargaining units or unrepresented safety members.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY, this bill authorized the California
Coastal Commission to administratively impose civil penalties in an
enforcement case against anyone in violation of the Coastal Act of
1976.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : According to the sponsor, the Board of Supervisors of
Sacramento County, AB 226 will assist in implementing provisions
contained in recently negotiated labor agreements that will prevent
layoffs without increasing pension obligations. The County points
out that their Sheriff, John McGinness, also supports these
changes.
According to the sponsor, AB 226 will, "?enable Sacramento County
to establish a new lower retirement tier for some of our new county
law enforcement employees of 3% at age 55 with a three year highest
compensation average, and a retiree Cost of Living Adjustment
(COLA) not to exceed 2% annually. This new Safety Tier is part of
a labor package the Board of Supervisors endorsed on August 12,
2010. It applies to bargaining units represented by both the
Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs' Association (SCDSA) and the Law
Enforcement Management Association (LEMA). Both organizations
support AB 226. Without this bill, implementation of the agreement
would have to await agreement with all other Recognized Employee
Organizations (REO's) that have safety employees.
"The second change in the bill amends the 1937 Act and specifically
applies to Sacramento County because of recent agreements reached
between us and three of our REOs: SCDSA, LEMA, and AFSCME-Health
Services Unit 008. In general, the County and these REOs have
agreed to delay implementation of both a Cost of Living Adjustment
(COLA) and an equity salary increase. Due to pending legislation
AB 226
Page 3
that addresses the calculation of final compensation for retirement
purposes (Assembly Bill 1987-Ma), our Sacramento County Retirement
Administrator advised us that statutory clarification would be
prudent to make it clear that these agreements will not increase
the final compensation that will be calculated for their retirement
benefit. AB 226 makes that necessary clarification."
Analysis Prepared by : Karon Green / P.E., R. & S.S. / (916)
319-3957
FN:
0006890