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)
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 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.
AB 226
Page 2
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 that addresses the
calculation of final compensation for retirement purposes
(Assembly Bill 1987-Ma), our Sacramento County Retirement
AB 226
Page 3
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: 0006818