Louisiana House Bill HB784

Louisiana 2010 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/29/10
• Refer: 3/29/10

Caption

Relative to the La. State Employees' Retirement System, provides for benefit enhancements for certain employees within DPS&C, office of the state fire marshal (OR: +$3,600,000 APV)

Impact

The primary impact of HB 784 is the introduction of a tailored retirement plan for individuals working in high-risk positions within the office of the state fire marshal. It establishes conditions for retirement eligibility such as 25 years of service at any age, or a reduced pension after 20 years of service. The plan also includes provisions for disability retirement benefits that are significantly higher than the standard LASERS rates at 75% of average compensation for in-line-of-duty disabilities, which reflects a recognition of the hazardous nature of their work.

Summary

House Bill 784 establishes the Fire Marshal's Retirement Plan within the Louisiana State Employees' Retirement System (LASERS), specifically for certain personnel employed by the office of the state fire marshal starting on or after January 1, 2011. The plan is designed to enhance retirement benefits for these employees, including specific eligibility criteria for retirement, contribution rates, and additional provisions for disability and survivor benefits. The employee contribution rate is set at 9.5%, and the plan offers certain attractive benefits to enhance recruitment and retention of specialized staff within the fire marshal's office.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding this bill appears to be generally supportive, particularly among those in public safety sectors who recognize the need for enhanced benefits for first responders. Proponents argue that it helps attract talent to critical public safety roles. However, there may be concerns regarding the financial implications of increased benefits on the overall LASERS funding and how these enhancements may affect the state’s fiscal responsibilities moving forward.

Contention

While the bill has clear benefits for targeted employees, there are potential points of contention regarding its funding mechanisms, as the costs will need to be covered by state appropriations and contributions from employers. Discussions may arise concerning the sustainability of the additional benefits and how they align with the existing retirement structures within other public employee systems. Furthermore, it raises questions about the prioritization of funding for high-risk job categories versus other state employment sectors.