Louisiana 2017 Regular Session

Louisiana House Bill HB36

Introduced
2/24/17  
Introduced
2/24/17  
Refer
2/24/17  
Refer
2/24/17  
Refer
4/20/17  
Refer
4/20/17  

Caption

Provides relative to the reemployment of retirees of the Municipal Employees' Retirement System of La. (OR INCREASE APV)

Impact

The impact of HB 36 on the state's laws is primarily financial. By allowing elected retirees to collect both their retirement benefits and earnings without capping the combined amount, the bill is expected to slightly increase the actuarial and fiscal costs of the retirement system. However, the estimated increase in future benefit payments is described as 'small' due to the limited number of retirees who may simultaneously hold such positions. Other post-employment benefits like health insurance will reportedly remain unchanged due to this proposal.

Summary

House Bill 36 proposes modifications to the current rules governing the reemployment of retirees from the Municipal Employees’ Retirement System (MERS) of Louisiana. The existing law stipulates that if a retiree is rehired by a participating employer, the total of their retirement benefit and current earnings cannot exceed their pre-retirement average compensation. HB 36 introduces an exception for those retired members who are elected to an office and subsequently become employed by a covered employer. Under this new provision, these retirees can receive their full retirement benefits alongside their new earnings without any imposed limits.

Sentiment

Discussions surrounding HB 36 suggest a generally supportive sentiment from those who believe it encourages retired public servants to continue contributing to their communities in elected roles. Proponents argue that this could lead to enhanced governance as experienced individuals are incentivized to return to public service. However, some concerns have been raised regarding the long-term sustainability of the pension fund, particularly if more retirees begin to take advantage of this provision.

Contention

While the bill appears to generate positive discourse around public service and veteran engagement, there are notable points of contention. Critics might argue that it could lead to fiscal stress on the retirement systems, ultimately impacting municipalities if the employer contribution rates increase to offset the higher benefit payments. Furthermore, there could be concerns about fairness and equity within the system, as it allows a specific group of retirees to benefit without similar provisions offered to other public sector employees.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

CA SB321

Late signature curing expenditure reports.

CA AB2447

California State University: fiscal transparency: internet website.

AZ HB2364

Lobbyists; gift ban exemption

AZ HB2089

Community colleges; expenditure limitation

CA AB1052

The Financial Information System for California (FISCal).

CA AB62

State government: FI$Cal: transparency.

CA SB468

Taxation: tax expenditures: California Tax Expenditure Review Board.

CA SB768

Transportation projects: comprehensive development lease agreements.