Louisiana House Bill HB34

Louisiana 2016 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/26/16
• Refer: 1/26/16
• Refer: 3/14/16
• Report Pass: 3/28/16

Caption

Provides that all mayors are members of the Municipal Employees' Retirement System (EG INCREASE APV)

Impact

The enactment of HB 34 is expected to have measurable fiscal and actuarial implications. The costs associated with the increased participation of mayors in MERS include a rise in both employee and employer contributions, which will contribute to an overall increase in actuarial costs and future benefit payouts. However, estimates indicate that the financial impact on local funds will be minimal, suggesting that local governments may accommodate these costs without significant strain on their budgets.

Summary

House Bill 34 aims to broaden the definition of 'employee' within the Municipal Employees' Retirement System (MERS) to include mayors of municipalities regardless of their work schedules. Previously, mayors were required to be employed on a permanent and regularly scheduled basis of at least 35 hours per week to participate in MERS. This legislative change allows more mayors to opt into the retirement system, positively impacting their future retirement benefits and promoting inclusivity in municipal governance.

Sentiment

The general sentiment around HB 34 appears to be positive, particularly among supporters who advocate for expanded access to retirement benefits for municipal leaders. They argue that this change is essential for incentivizing public service and ensuring that elected officials have a secure financial future. Nonetheless, there could be concerns or objections from some fiscal conservatives who might argue against increasing benefits at a time when municipal budgets are tight.

Contention

One point of contention may arise regarding the balancing act between providing adequate retirement benefits and managing fiscal responsibility in municipalities. While supporters view HB 34 as a necessary step toward fair treatment of mayors, critics may challenge the costs that come with expanding benefits to officials who may not meet the traditional employment criteria. This tension highlights the ongoing debate surrounding compensation and benefits for public servants.