HomeMy WebLinkAbout44-09 RESOLUTIONRESOLUTION NO. 44-09
A RESOLUTION TO EXPRESS THE CITY COUNCIL'S
OPPOSITION TO ANY PROPOSED STATE LAW THAT
WOULD CONSTITUTE AN UNFUNDED MANDATE UPON
CITY TAXPAYERS OR WOULD REMOVE DISCRETIONARY
POWER OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO CONTROL ITS
BUDGETARY EXPENSES.
WHEREAS, the City of Fayetteville has a outstanding cadre of dedicated and highly
competent employees; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council are committed to assuring that all city
employees receive the compensation and benefits that they deserve; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council appreciate the concerns expressed in pending
legislation before the 87th Arkansas General Assembly to assure adequate benefits for local
government employees and retires; and
WHEREAS, municipal governments have limited powers and avenues for securing
revenues and can utilize only such means as are specifically granted by state legislation; and
WHEREAS, several "shell" bills (title only) have been filed in the 87th Arkansas General
Assembly that could severely impact the finances of the City of Fayetteville and its taxpayers;
and
WHEREAS, pending legislation would "require pension plans under local police and fire
pension and relief funds to merge with (LOPFI) ...."; and
WHEREAS, current state law gives the City Council the discretion of whether or not
such merger should occur because such merger would require Fayetteville and its taxpayers to be
liable for the multimillion dollar unsoundness of the pension plans; and
WHEREAS, any other bills which could impose an unfiinded mandate or reduce the City
Council's power or discretion over budgetary matters should not be enacted.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby requests
that the 87'h Arkansas General Assembly ensure that any bills It considers will not place an
unfunded mandate on cities and their taxpayers nor remove a city council's authority to
determine whether or not old police and fire pension plans should be consolidated with LOPFI
(with the substantial resulting expense for the city and its taxpayers).
Page 2
Res.44-09
Section 2: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby requests
that the 87th Arkansas General Assembly provide full state funding for any mandated changes in
benefits for employees and retirees of local governments.
‘Ff;
PASSED and APPROVED this 17th day of February, 2009.
ATTEST:
By:
SONDRA E. SMITH, City ClerldTreasurer
Paul Becker, Finance Director
Submitted By
City of Fayetteville Staff Review Form
City Council Agenda Items
and
Contracts, Leases or Agreements
2/17/2009
City Council Meeting Date
Agenda Items Only
Finance
Division
Action Required:
R65
c72/17 /09
17/1/-09
0 la-fi
0 e05(47011
Department
Approval of a City Council Resolution of Intent Regarding Pending Legislation.
Cost of this request
Account Number
Project Number
Budgeted Item
Category / Project Budget
Funds Used to Date
Remaining Balance
Budget Adjustment Attached
Program Category Project Name
Program Project Category Name
Fund Name
Te..A
Department Director
Date
Finance and Internal Services Director
Date
ate
Previous Ordinance or Resolution #
Original Contract Date:
Original Contract Number:
Received in
Mayor's Office
ate
Comments:
Revised January 15,2009
rttlaye evi le
ARKANSAS
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
TO: Mayor Lioneld Jordan, Don Marr, Chief of Staff and City Council Members
FROM: Paul A. Becker, Finance Director ?Pies
DATE. February 3, 2009
SUBJECT: Pending State Legislation
There have been numerous bills introduced in the state legislature that relate to
Policemen's and Firemen's Pension and Relief Funds (the City's old pension plans). Many of
these bills have no specific detail included as of yet. The city should oppose any pension bill with
no specific details attached. The city should also oppose any bill which would require a
municipality to consolidate local pension systems with the State LOPFI pension plan. Currently
the municipality has the authority to send a local plan to LOPFI for consolidation. This should be
a decision left to the discretion of the local Pension Board and City Council.
Finally, I recommend that in view of the current economic situation, the City oppose any
legislation which would require additional local finding, because that in essence results in an
unfunded mandate to cities already under financial stress.
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
KIT WILLIAMS, CITY ATTORNEY
DAVID WHITAKER, ASST. CITY ATTORNEY
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
TO: Lioneld Jordan, Mayor
City Council
Don Marr, Chief of Staff
Paul Becker, Finance Director
Missy Leflar, Human Resources Division Manager
Marsha Hertweck, Accounting Director
FROM: Kit Williams, City Attorney
DATE: February 6, 2009
RED "Shell" bills for pension law changes (SB 146, SB 222)
SB 234 — extending health insurance for retired city officials, police and fire
HB 1199 — COLA for Fire and Police Pension
The Arkansas Legislature always tries to help our police and fire pensioners
which is laudable except where such help will adversely affect our taxpayers and
the power of our City Council to determine budgetary issues Two "shell" bills
(title and subtitle only — no actual wording for what the bill will actually say) have
been filed that could severely impact Fayetteville's finances, direct money from
working employees to pay retired employees, require tax increases, and remove the
City Council's power to control this multimillion dollar budget issues.
Senate Bill 146 (attached) looks like it may try to do what House Bill 1099
proposed to do in 2007: require merger or consolidation of the old closed fire and
police pension funds with LOPFI. Current law (A.C.A. §24-11-406 and §24-11-
804) gives the city councils the right to determine whether or not to consolidate
these old plans. This is important for plans such as those administered by our local
pensioners for themselves. The pension boards have so increased their own
benefits (payable immediately upon retirement regardless of age and now at 100%
of their ending salary) that the pensions have so depleted their funds that they are
not actuarially sound (with a $20 million deficit anticipated). Present law does
not make a city responsible for these pensioner run funds. If their fund gets
depleted, the pensioners will statutorily have their benefits cut to only what the
state tumback and continuing millage will pay.
However, if consolidated or merged with LOPFI, this $20 million deficit
becomes the City of Fayetteville taxpayers' responsibility. Fayetteville
taxpayers "shall remit such actuarially computed amounts as are necessary to pay
full benefits to current and future recipients." A.C.A §24 11 804(b)(3)(E). This
multimillion dollar city taxpayers' commitment should not be mandated by the
State Legislature, but left to the judgment of the Fayetteville City Council.
House Bill 1099 of 2007 was withdrawn after we brought this problem to the
attention of its sponsor, Representative Eric Hams. (See Attached memo of 2-2-
07) Hopefully Senator Jeffress will ensure his SB 146 will also not require such
merger or consolidation without City Council approval.
Senate Bill 222 by Senator Laverty (attached) may not be adverse at all to
our citizens. However, as a shell bill, we should be wary of any amendment
"regarding funding local retirement liabilities for local police and fire personnel."
. My primary concern remains that we should not be forced to merge or consolidate
our old plans with LOPFI nor to add further taxpayer support for these closed
plans which remain supported by millage Shell bills dealing with "retirement
liabilities" just make me nervous
Senate Bill 234 by Senator Elliott makes some confusing changes to A.C.A.
§24-12-129 to provide health insurance coverage to retired city officials (mayors,
etc.) and retired police and fire uniformed officers. Currently, such retirees who
reach 55 years of age and pay for the city's portion and employee's portion of the
health insurance premium can keep our city's group health insurance. (A.C.A.
§24-12-129) This law currently has a small adverse affect (because of the age of
participants) on our premiums, but provides a good benefit for retired city officials,
police and fire (but no civilian employees).
Unfortunately Bill 234 could be "very expensive" as explained by Missy
Leflar's e-mail, Accounting Director Marsha Hertweck's memo of February 2,
2009 and Paul Becker's memo of February 4, 2009 (all attached). This bill
changes the law to state that these retirees "may continue to participate in the
municipality's health care plan, receiving the same medical benefits and paying the
same premium as active employees."
Struck from the current law was the ending clause that makes a giant
financial impact on taxpayer revenues: "as long as the retired official or employee
pays both employer and employee contributions to the health care plan." Striking
2
those words could mean that those retirees would only pay "the same premium as
active employees," and not need to pay the City's portion of the premium.
This would be an immediate annual cost to our taxpayers of $43,899.00 for
current retirees. However, this major subsidy of retiree health insurance premium
would certainly substantially increase the number of retired police and fire seeking
this benefit so the annual cost would likely escalate dramatically in the fiiture.
I do not think Senator Elliott actually intends to force municipalities to pay
this unfunded mandate. Subsection (b) says cities "may choose to pay any portion
of the employer and employee contributions ..." Unfortunately, the striking of the
earlier clause requiring an employee to pay "both employer and employee
contributions" makes it likely that a Court would interpret the language "paying
the same premium as active employees" to mean retirees could never be forced to
pay the City's portion of the health insurance premium as required by current law.
If SB 234 did not delete that last clause and still added subsection (b) as
Senator Elliott proposes, a city council could voluntanly choose to pay some or
all of all city officials', police officers' and firefighters' health insurance premium.
That would not be an unfunded mandate (like it probably is as currently proposed).
House Bill 1199 by Representative Hoyt apparently seeks to push 3%
COLAs on the old police pension boards as if the pension boards cannot think
about doing it themselves. (Both of our old pension boards have granted
themselves 3% Five-year COLAs). What this bill will do is to require an actuarial
study done every year for every closed police pension plan in Arkansas (even if the
plans, like ours, are clearly not "actuarially sound"). Every year, our plan would
have to pay for a needless actuarial study to conform that a 3% COLA would still
not be "actuarially appropriate."
Of course this bill would be worse if it did not require the COLA to be
"actuarially appropriate" and so deplete the pension fund to zero that much faster.
Attached is Paul Becker's memo of February 5, 2009 about this bill.
Senate Bill 237 by Senator Elliott would "provide that police officers and
firefighters with certain diseases (as yet not listed) will be presumed to have been
injured in the line of duty for disability retirement benefits." I am not sure why the
present system requiring medical evidence and the pension board's decision should
be replaced by the State Legislature's decision. The list of such "certain diseases"
will be interesting (and of course can be added to by later legislative action).
3
Every officer retired for a disease requiring a presumed disability will have
to be supported by the taxpayers just as his or her replacement officer. An officer
actually injured in the line of duty should certainly receive the pension rights as
currently authorized by state law. But citizen support for disability pensions might
erode if the legislature grants "in the line of duty ... disability retirement benefits"
for officers who do not appear disabled, have fully recovered, or who cannot link
their disease to their work. I guess I do not know what problem Senator Elliott is
attempting to solve.
CONCLUSION
Several filed House or Senate bills (especially SB 146) may have serious
financial ramifications for Fayetteville taxpayers or remove the City Council's
power over major budget issues.
4
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION TO EXPRESS THE CITY COUNCIL'S OPPOSITION
TO ANY PROPOSED STATE LAW THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE AN
UNFUNDED MANDATE UPON CITY TAXPAYERS OR WOULD
REMOVE DISCRETIONARY POWER OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO
CONTROL ITS BUDGETARY EXPENSES
WHEREAS, the City of Fayetteville has a outstanding cadre of dedicated and highly
competent employees; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council are committed to assuring that all city
employees receive the compensation and benefits that they deserve; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council appreciate the concerns expressed in pending
legislation before the 87th Arkansas General Assembly to assure adequate benefits for local
government employees and retires; and
WHEREAS, municipal governments have limited powers and avenues for securing
revenues and can utilize only such means as are specifically granted by state legislation; and
WHEREAS, several "shell" bills (title only) have been filed in the 871b Arkansas General
Assembly that could severely impact the finances of the City of Fayetteville and its taxpayers;
and
WHEREAS, pending legislation would "require pension plans under local police and fire
pension and relief funds to merge with (LOPFI) ...."; and
WHEREAS, current state law gives the City Council the discretion of whether or not
such merger should occur because such merger would require Fayetteville and its taxpayers to be
liable for the multimillion dollar unsoundness of the pension plans; and
WHEREAS, any other bills which could impose an unfunded mandate or reduce the City
Council's power or discretion over budgetary matters should not be enacted.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby requests
that the 87th Arkansas General Assembly ensure that any bills it considers will not place an
unfunded mandate on cities and their taxpayers nor remove a city council's authority to
determine whether or not old police and fire pension plans should be consolidated with LOPFI
(with the substantial resulting expense for the city and its taxpayers).
Section 2: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby requests
that the 87th Arkansas General Assembly provide full state funding for any mandated changes in
benefits for employees and retirees of local governments.
PASSED and APPROVED this 17th day of February, 2009.
APPROVED: ATTEST:
By: By:
LIONELD JORDAN, Mayor SONDRA E. SMITH, City Clerk/Treasurer
Stricken language would be deleted from and underlined language would be added to the law as it existed
prior to this session of the General Assembly.
1 State of Arkansas
2 871h General Assembly A Bill
3 Regular Session, 2009
4
5 By: Senator J. Jeffress
6
7
8 For An Act To Be Entitled
9 AN ACT TO REQUIRE PENSION PLANS UNDER THE LOCAL
10 POLICE AND FIRE PENSION AND RELIEF FUNDS TO MERGE
11 WITH THE LOCAL POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM
12 WHEN CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS ARE MET; AND FOR OTHER
13 PURPOSES.
14
15 Subtitle
16 TO REQUIRE PENSIONS PLANS UNDER THE
17 LOCAL POLICE AND FIRE PENSION AND RELIEF
18 FUNDS TO MERGE WITH THE LOCAL POLICE AND
19 FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM WHEN CERTAIN
20 REQUIREMENTS ARE MET.
21
22
23 BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS:
24
25 SECTION 1. The purpose of this act •is to require pensions plans under
26 the Local Police and Fire Pension and Relief Funds to merge with the Local
27 Police and Fire Retirement System when certain requirements are met.
28
SENATE BILL 146
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
11
11
1
ul
01-23-2009 09.33 MMC114
Stricken language would be deleted from and underlined language would be added to the law as it existed
prior to this session of the General Assembly.
1 State of Arkansas
2 87th General Assembly A Bill
3 Regular Session, 2009 SENATE BILL 222
4
5 By: Senator Laverty
6
7
8 For An Act To Be Entitled
9 AN ACT TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS CODE REGARDING
10 FUNDING LOCAL RETIREMENT LIABILITIES FOR LOCAL
11 POLICE AND FIRE PERSONNEL; AND FOR OTHER
12 PURPOSES.
13
14 Subtitle
15 TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS CODE REGARDING
16 FUNDING LOCAL RETIREMENT LIABILITIES FOR
17 LOCAL POLICE AND FIRE PERSONNEL.
18
19
20 BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS:
21
22 SECTION 1. The purpose of this act is to amend the Arkansas Code
23 regarding funding local retirement liabilities for local police and fire
24 personnel.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
110
Il
11
011
01-22-2009 12:40 MMC105
Stricken language would be deleted from and underlined language would be added to the law as it existed
prior to this session of the General Assembly.
1 State of Arkansas
2 87th General Assembly A. Bill
3 Regular Session, 2009 SENATE BILL 234
4
5 By: Senator Elliott
6
7
8 For An Act To Be Entitled
9 AN ACT CONCERNING HEALTH CARE BENEFITS FOR
10 MUNICIPAL OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES WHO ARE
11 ELIGIBLE FOR UNREDUCED RETIREMENT WITH ANY STATE
12 OR LOCAL PENSION AND RELIEF FUND; AND FOR OTHER
13 PURPOSES.
14
15 Subtitle
16 AN ACT CONCERNING HEALTH CARE BENEFITS
17 FOR MUNICIPAL OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES
18 WHO ARE ELIGIBLE FOR UNREDUCED
19 RETIREMENT WITH ANY STATE OR LOCAL
20 PENSION AND RELIEF FUND.
21
22
23 BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS:
24
25 SECTION 1. Arkansas Code § 24-12-129 is amended to read as follows:
26 24-12-129. Municipal officials and employees.
27 (a) When any municipal official or municipal employee age fifty five
28 (55) or over who has completed twenty (20) years of s TViCC to the
29 municipality and who is vested in thc retirement system who is eligible for
30 an unreduced retirement with any state -supported or government -based local
31 pension and relief fund retires,,the official or employee may continue to
32 participate in the municipality's health care plan, receiving the same
33 medical benefits and paying the same premium as active employees as long ao
34 thc retired official or employee pays both c loycr n employee
35 contributions to the health arc plan.
36 (b) Each municipality may choose to pay any portion of the employer
1
111
11
01-23-2009 09:23 MMC108
SB234
1 and employee contributions to the municipality's health care plan so long as
2 all retired municipal officials and municipal employees within each
3 municipality are treated equally with regard to the dollar amounts that are
4 paid by the municipality toward health care coverage of each retiree.
5 (c) The retired municipal official or retired municipal employee shall
6 pay the amount of the health care premium that is not paid by the employer.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
2 01-23-2009 09:23 MMC108
1171—"WilHarris: ALERT: This legislation' would be yen/ expensive Pagel
From: Missy Lefler
To: Don Marr; Kit Williams:, Lana Broyles; Lioneld Jordan; Paul Becker
Date: 1/27/09 11:15AM
Subject: ALERT: This legislation would be very expensive
Lana spotted this proposed legislation change.
It would be very expensive for the City and, as I read it, would reduce a benefit for merit employees. It
might also indirectly hurt all existing employees. .
At present, if any municipal employee aged 55 or older who has served 20 years with the City retires, they
can stay on the City's health insurance as long as they want, provided they pay both their part and the
employer part.
People like this. They can hold on to their Blue Cross if they prefer it over Medicare.
The proposed change would, first, limit the legislation to uniformed employees who are on LOPFI (or "old
LOPFI") and would force the City to continue to pay its portion of their Blue Cross for as long as the
employee lives. So it hurts merit employees and hurts the City financially.
To give you an idea, the City presently pays around $210 a month for an employee's individual coverage
and around $520 a month for an employee's family coverage. That obligation stops when the employee
leaves the City.
Where this indirectly hurts all existing employees is that this amendment says "whatever you pay for
existing employees, you have to pay for pension retirees". This means that the City's only recourse to
offset the increased expense would be to reduce the portion of what it pays FOR ALL EMPLOYEES.
This is very bad proposed legislation. I don't know who y'all go to on these things (Lindsley Smith?) but
someone in a position to lobby against it should be consulted, in my opinion.
Missy Lefler
Human Resources Division Manager
City of Fayetteville
113W. Mountain
Fayetteville, AR 72701
PH: 479-575-8298
Fax: 479-718-7698
E-mail: mleflar@ci.fayetteville.ar.us
CC: Krista Laningham; Marsha Hertweck
'Wire cuille
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
To: Paul Becker, Finance Director
From: Marsha Hertweck, Accounting Director
Date: February 2, 2009
Subject: Pending Senate Bill 234
I have read Senate Bill 234 amending Arkansas Code 24-12-129. My interpretation of the
bill is that this amendment would require municipalities with vested retired officials and
employees in a state supported fund or a local based pension and relief fund to pay the
same premiums of the City's health insurance cost for retirees as it pays for active
employees. As worded it appears to exclude employees in a defined contribution plan
such as our general employee plan. The current law allows employees that retire at 55 or
older and have 20 years of service to remain in the City's health insurance plan and they
pay the entire cost of the insurance premium.
The City presently has five retired employees on the traditional Blue Cross family plan,
three on the traditional single plan and one on the HSA family plan. If the City was
required to pay the same benefit for these retired employees as active employees, the cost
to the City would be $529 for those on traditional family plan, $217 for those on the
traditional single plan and $354 for those on the family HSA for a total cost of $43,800
annually. It is likely that many more retirees would stay in the City's health care program
if the City is required to pay this benefit and these current costs would probably multiply.
The present law allowing retired employees to stay in the health care plan has a slight
cost to the City in that older participants increase the overall cost of the plan. In
accounting terms this increased cost is called an implicit cost and the City is required to
have an actuarial study performed every two years to determine this cost and to accrue
the liability in the government -wide financial statements. The current liability for the City
is $2,733,600 and the annual required contribution to fund this liability for the end of
2008 was $354,059 per the latest actuarial study. The City does not fund this liability but
uses a pay as you go approach.
If the City is required to pay a portion of the premium for retired employees the annual
required contribution to fund the liability will greatly increase and the City will have to
look at some funding mechanism other than pay as you go. So aside from the $43,800 of
increased current costs, the City will also need to fund the liability of future costs of this
benefit program
113 WEST MOUNTAIN 72701 479-521-7700
FAX 479-575-8257
rrammtriii
aye -
viie
ARKANSAS
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
TO: Mayor Lioneld Jordan and City Council Members
FROM: Paul A. Becker, Finance Director Iiikt)
DATE: February 4, 2009
SUBJECT: SB -234 ---Changes in the Ability for Retired Employees to Obtain
Insurance through the Employers' Plan
Attached is an analysis I asked Marsha Hertweck to do. This bill has several major
problems:
• In its present form, the bill would exclude any employees except uniformed
employees, which would affect other municipal workers currently on the
Employers' plan.
• If I read the bill correctly, the City would be required to pay for the City
portion of costs which, if the current employees continued to carry our
insurance, would be an immediate cost of $43,800 (assuming the same
individuals currently covered are eligible).
• A bigger problem would be that since the cost would be much less than that
for private coverage, more retired employees would select coverage.
• The biggest problem would be the implicit cost to the City (an actuarially
derived number required by current accounting principles) would go up
dramatically and have a significant impact on our financial statements.
veevtllc
ARKANSAS
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
TO: Mayor Lioneld Jordan and City Council Members
CC: Don Marr, Chief of Staff
FROM: Paul A. Becker, Finance Director
DATE: February 5,2009
SUBJECT: HB -1199 — An Act to Allow a Cost -of -Living Adjustment for All Police
Officers Retired Under The Old Police Pension Plans That are Managed By
The Local Fire Police And Fire Pension System
If my understanding of this bill is correct, police and fire retirees under old pension plans
would receive an automatic 3% cost -of -living increase each year if actuarially appropriate.
Currently this is an issue decided by the local pension oversight boards (if allowed by the
Arkansas Pension Review Board).This legislation would take away local control of this issue and
would force increased costs on the old local pension funds. This decision should be left to the
local pension oversight boards.
Nor
Stricken language would be deleted from and underlined language would be added to the law as it existed
prior to this session of the General Assembly.
1 State of Arkansas
2 87th General Assembly A pill
3 Regular Session, 2009 HOUSE BILL 1199
4
5 By: Representative Hoyt
6
7
8 For An Act To Be Entitled
9 AN ACT TO ALLOW A COST -OF -LIVING ADJUSTMENT FOR
10 ALL POLICE OFFICERS RETIRED UNDER THE OLD POLICE
11 PENSION RETIREMENT PLANS THAT ARE MANAGED BY THE
12 ARKANSAS LOCAL POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM;
13 AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
14
15 Subtitle
16 AN ACT TO ALLOW A COST -OF -LIVING
17 ADJUSTMENT FOR ALL POLICE OFFICERS
18 RETIRED UNDER THE OLD POLICE PENSION
19 RETIREMENT PLANS THAT ARE MANAGED BY THE
20 LOCAL POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM;
21 AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
22
23
24 BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS:
25
26 SECTION 1. Arkansas Code Title 24, Chapter 11, Subchapter 4 is amended
27 to add an additional section to read as follows:
28 24-11-439. Compounded cost -of -living adiustments.
29 (a) Beginning July 1, 2009, and each July 1 thereafter which is at
30 least twelve (12) months after the effective date of a monthly benefit, each
31 city or town having a policemen's pension and relief fund that is organized
32 under any existing statute of this state and each city or town that covers
33 its police department under the Arkansas Local Police and Fire Retirement
34 System shall redetermine the benefit amount effective each July 1, and the
35 redetermined amount shall be payable for the ensuing year.
36
(b) The redetermined amount shall be the amount of the benefit payable
11
11
II
01-23-2009 15:09 MMC054
ilB1199
1 as of the immediately preceding June 30 plus a three percent (3%) cost -of -
2 living increase.
3 Sc1(1) The benefit provisions provided in subsections (a) and (b) of
4 this section shall be:
5 (A) Implemented according to rules of the board of
6 trustees of the policemen's pension and relief fund; and
7 (B) Actuarially appropriate for the policemen's pension
8 and relief fund.
9 (2) Before increasing a benefit under this section, the board of
10 trustees of the policemen's pension and relief fund shall file relevant
11 information concerning the actuarial appropriateness of the action with the
12 Arkansas Fire and Police Pension Review Board.
13
14 SECTION 2. EMERGENCY CLAUSE. It is found and determined by the
15 General Assembly of the State of Arkansas that retired police officers are
16 not receiving a cost -of -living increase in their retirement benefits; that
17 the cost of living has increased substantially; and that a cost -of -living
18 increase is necessary to ensure the health and well-being of our retired
19 police officers. Therefore, an emergency is declared to exist and.this act
20 being necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health, and safety
21 shall become effective on July 1, 2009.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
2 01-23-2009 15:09 M14C054