BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    






          SENATE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT & RETIREMENT      BILL NO: AB 86
          Lou Correa, Chair              Hearing date: June 8, 2009
          AB 86 (Nava)    as introduced  12/9/08      FISCAL:   YES

           PERS:  SAFETY MEMBERSHIP FOR AIRPORT PATROL OFFICERS
           
           HISTORY  :

              Sponsor:  Peace Officers Research Association of  
          California (PORAC)
                       Service Employees International Union (SEIU)

              Prior legislation:  AB 376 (Nava) 2008
                         Vetoed


           ASSEMBLY VOTES  :

              PER & SS             6-0       4/01/09
              Appropriations       16-0      4/22/09
              Assembly Floor       79-0      5/04/09
           

          SUMMARY  :
          
          Would allow local contracting agencies of the California  
          Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) to reclassify  
          specified airport law enforcement officers as local safety  
          members.


           BACKGROUND  :  
          
           1)   PERS safety retirement benefits are higher than  
          non-safety
           
          The committee is advised that PERS 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.

          David Felderstein
          Date: 5/27/09                                          Page 1  










          2)   Existing PERS law provides that some employee positions  
          are optional for safety benefits

           The committee is advised that  existing PERS law  requires that  
          employees in some positions be designated as safety  
          employees.  These typically include local police officers,  
          firefighters, sheriffs and investigators for district  
          attorneys' offices.  PERS safety members do not participate  
          in the federal Social Security, so neither the employer nor  
          the employee is required to contribute to the program (6.2%  
          of pay for both the employer and employee).






























          David Felderstein
          Date: 5/27/09                                          Page 2  










          Many other local safety designations included in  existing  
          PERS 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.


           ANALYSIS  :
          
          1)   Airport patrol officers are now "miscellaneous"  
          (non-safety) members of PERS
           
           According to PERS  , those employees who perform duties as  
          airport patrol officers are now classified as PERS local  
          miscellaneous members if their functions do not clearly fall  
          within the scope of active law enforcement.

          2)   This bill would add airport patrol officer to optional  
          PERS local safety member benefits
           
           This bill  :  

            a)  expands the definition of "local safety member" to  
            include any airport patrol officer, airport law enforcement  
            officer, or airport police officer employed by a PERS local  
            contracting agency,

            b)  removes affected employees from Social Security, and

            c)  specifies that this provision only applies to local  
            agencies that choose to amend their contract with PERS to  
            include it.
           

          FISCAL EFFECT  :  
           
          According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee analysis:

            "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.   
          David Felderstein
          Date: 5/27/09                                          Page 3  










            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."































          David Felderstein
          Date: 5/27/09                                          Page 4  










           COMMENTS  :
          
          1)   Arguments in support  

          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."

          2)   Arguments in opposition  

          According to the California Association of Joint Powers  
          Authorities (CAJPA), which opposes  this bill  :

            "The CAJPA opposes this bill because it expands who is  
            considered eligible to receive special benefits under Labor  
            Code 4850 and classifies additional occupations into the  
            definition of "Public Safety Officers."  Labor Code 4850  
            and Presumption Benefits are provided to those employees  
            who face certain risks on a daily basis and are more prone  
            to be injured by these events than other employees.

            Under current law, a public employer may already provide  
            additional benefits to any occupation group, if is so  
            chooses by offering injury/illness leaves and salary  
            continuation benefits without having to change the  
            definition of who is a public safety officer.  CAJPA does  
            not believe that expanding benefit coverage in these hard  
          David Felderstein
          Date: 5/27/09                                          Page 5  










            economic times is reasonable or prudent and may cause  
            additional reductions in force and layoffs of other  
            classifications of public sector employees."

          3)   Similar bill vetoed last year  

           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, the Governor stated:

            "The 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."

























          David Felderstein
          Date: 5/27/09                                          Page 6  










          4)   SUPPORT  :

               American Federation of State, County and Municipal  
          Employees (AFSCME)

          5)   OPPOSITION  :

               California Association of Joint Powers Authorities  
          (CAJPA)


































          David Felderstein
          Date: 5/27/09                                          Page 7  













                                            #####





































          David Felderstein
          Date: 5/27/09                                          Page 8