BILL ANALYSIS
AB 86
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 22, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
AB 86 (Nava) - As Introduced: January 5, 2009
Policy Committee: Local
GovernmentVote:6-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill allows local contracting agencies of the California
Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) to reclassify
specified airport law enforcement officers as local safety
members, thereby enabling them to receive enhanced retirement
allowances, death benefits, and disability benefits. Key
provisions of the bill:
1)State that the proposed changes would only apply to local
agencies that choose to amend their contract with CalPERS.
2)Exclude those airport law enforcement officers that become
classified as local safety members from participation in
federal social security.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Increase in employer contributions for local agencies choosing
to provide the local safety designation to their airport
patrol officers, partly offset by reductions in employer costs
for federal social security contributions. Statewide costs
likely to be modest, however, because most patrol officers at
major airports are either working for general police agencies
(and thus are already classified as local safety members) or
are employed by agencies that do not contract with CalPERS.
2)Since election by local governments to provide this option is
voluntary, the measure would not constitute a local mandate.
CalPERS indicates that workload associated with contract
changes could be absorbed.
AB 86
Page 2
COMMENTS
1)Background . Local Safety members of CalPERS receive enhanced
retirement formulas and industrial death and disability
benefits. Local safety designations are required for certain
employee classifications, such as local police officers,
firefighters, and sheriffs. Local contracting agencies may
also provide local safety designations as a contract option
for certain other categories, such as lifeguards, emergency
medical technicians, harbor and port police, police in school
districts, and park rangers. However, airport police
departments operated by the city or county are not explicitly
authorized to provide the local safety designation.
2)Rationale . Supporters of the bill argue that personnel
performing police functions in an airport should not be
penalized because they are not employed by a standard police
agency. They are classified as peace officers under the Penal
Code and may be required to carry firearms and perform many of
the same functions as other police. The bill is intended to
give airport officers the same negotiating power with their
contract agencies as is available to other peace officers.
3)Previous legislation . This bill is similar to AB 376(Nava) of
2008, which was vetoed by the governor, who cited the state
budget delay and lack of time for review of all but the
highest priority bills.
Analysis Prepared by : Brad Williams / APPR. / (916) 319-2081