BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 86|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 86
Author: Nava (D)
Amended: As introduced
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC EMP. & RET. COMMITTEE : 4-1, 6/8/09
AYES: Ducheny, Liu, Padilla, Wiggins
NOES: Ashburn
NO VOTE RECORDED: Correa, Benoit
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 79-0, 5/4/09 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Public employees retirement: airport police
officers
SOURCE : American Federation of State, County and
Municipal
Employees
Peace Officers Research Association of
California
Service Employees International Union
DIGEST : This bill allows local contracting agencies of
the California Public Employees Retirement System to
reclassify specified airport law enforcement officers as
local safety members.
ANALYSIS : Existing law requires that employees in some
positions be designated as safety employees in the
California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS).
CONTINUED
AB 86
Page
2
These typically include local police officers,
firefighters, sheriffs, and investigators for district
attorneys' officers. 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.
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.
Airport patrol officers are now "miscellaneous"
(non-safety) members of CalPERS . According to CalPERS,
those employees who perform duties as airport patrol
officers are now classified as CalPERS local miscellaneous
members if their functions do not clearly fall within the
scope of active law enforcement.
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. Removes affected employees from Social Security.
3. Specifies that this provision only applies to local
agencies that choose to amend their contract with
CalPERS to include it.
Previous legislation
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
AB 86
Page
3
meet that standard and I cannot sign it at this time."
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: Yes Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee analysis,
the actual costs to local agencies will depend on whether
that agency chooses to reclassify airport law enforcement
officers, and the number of personnel who are reclassified
from a miscellaneous classification, with a two percent at
age 55 retirement benefit formula, to a local safety
classification which offers one of the following formulas,
depending on the agency's contract: (1) two percent at age
55, (2) three percent at age 50, or (3) three percent at
age 55. In addition, since prior service of the
participating member is also reclassified, there will be
increased costs to each agency's future liability.
However, most patrol officers at major airports are either
working for general police agencies (and are already
classified as safety members), or are employed by agencies
that do not contract with CalPERS. Since safety members do
not participate in the federal social security program,
there will be some savings to employers for no longer
making those contributions.
SUPPORT : (Verified 7/8/09) (Per Sen. PE&R Com. analysis
6/8/09)
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees (co-source)
Peace Officers Research Association of California
(co-source)
Service Employees International Union (co-source)
OPPOSITION : (Verified 7/8/09) (Per Sen. PE&R Com.
analysis 6/8/09)
California Association of Joint Powers Authorities
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
AB 86
Page
4
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."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The California Association of
Joint Powers Authorities (CAJPA), which opposes writes:
"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
economic times is reasonable or prudent and may cause
additional reductions in force and layoffs of other
classifications of public sector employees."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Adams, Ammiano, Anderson, Arambula, Beall, Bill
Berryhill, Tom Berryhill, Blakeslee, Block, Blumenfield,
Brownley, Buchanan, Caballero, Charles Calderon, Carter,
Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De Leon,
DeVore, Duvall, Emmerson, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fletcher,
Fong, Fuentes, Fuller, Furutani, Gaines, Galgiani,
Garrick, Gilmore, Hagman, Hall, Harkey, Hayashi,
Hernandez, Hill, Huber, Huffman, Jeffries, Jones, Knight,
Krekorian, Lieu, Logue, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza,
Miller, Monning, Nava, Niello, Nielsen, John A. Perez, V.
Manuel Perez, Portantino, Price, Ruskin, Salas, Saldana,
Silva, Skinner, Smyth, Solorio, Audra Strickland,
AB 86
Page
5
Swanson, Torlakson, Torres, Torrico, Tran, Villines,
Yamada, Bass
NO VOTE RECORDED: Nestande
DLW:do 7/8/09 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****