BILL ANALYSIS
AB 86
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 86 (Nava)
As Introduced January 5, 2009
Majority vote
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES 6-0 APPROPRIATIONS 16-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Hernandez, Furutani, |Ayes:|De Leon, Nielsen, |
| |Beall, Conway, Nestande, | |Ammiano, |
| |Torrico | |Charles Calderon, Davis, |
| | | |Duvall, Fuentes, Hall, |
| | | |Harkey, Miller, |
| | | |John A. Perez, Price, |
| | | |Skinner, Solorio, Audra |
| | | |Strickland, Torlakson |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Allows local contracting agencies of the California
Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) to reclassify
specified airport law enforcement officers as local safety
members. Specifically, this bill :
1)Expands the definition of "local safety member" to include any
airport patrol officer, airport law enforcement officer, or
airport police officer employed by a CalPERS local contracting
agency.
2)Specifies that this provision only applies to local agencies
that choose to amend their contract with CalPERS to include
it.
3)Excludes affected employees from Social Security.
EXISTING LAW requires that employees in some positions be
designated as safety employees in CalPERS. These typically
include local police officers, firefighters, sheriffs and
investigators for district attorneys' offices. Many other local
safety designations included in existing law, however, are
optional and the local employer must agree to include them in
the safety member classification. These positions include
lifeguards, emergency medical technicians, harbor and port
police, police in school districts, park rangers, and others.
AB 86
Page 2
Safety members receive enhanced retirement formulas and
industrial death and disability benefits. Basic requirements
for safety status have included actively enforcing the law and
being substantially responsible for the protection of people and
property.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee:
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.
COMMENTS : According to supporters, "Airport patrol officers
are responsible for the safety of the public while they are on
airport property and in the wake of September 11th, the duties
of airport patrolmen have become much more intense. Airport
officers are classified as Peace Officers under California Penal
Code Section 830.33. They are the primary law enforcement
officers and first responders to all emergency and non-emergency
calls for law enforcement services in airports and they are
required to carry firearms and other safety equipment. However,
regardless of their safety duties, airport patrol officers are
not classified with other peace officers in the Government Code
as local safety members. This bill will give airport patrol
officers the same negotiating power with their contract agencies
that other officers who risk their well-being for the safety of
the public have."
This bill is similar to AB 376 (Nava) of 2008 which was vetoed
by the Governor due to the 2008-2009 State Budget delay.
In his veto message of AB 376, the Governor stated, "The
AB 86
Page 3
historic delay in passing the 2008-2009 State Budget has forced
me to prioritize the bills sent to my desk at the end of the
year's legislative session. Given the delay, I am only signing
bills that are the highest priority for California. This bill
does not meet that standard and I cannot sign it at this time."
Analysis Prepared by : Karon Green / P.E., R. & S.S. / (916)
319-3957
FN: 0000503