RETIREMENT/SHERIFFS FUND: Provides relative to employer contribution for the Sheriffs' Pension and Relief Fund (EN NO IMPACT APV)
Summary
HB 35 amends the law governing the Sheriffs' Pension and Relief Fund’s funding deposit account. The bill authorizes the board of trustees to require a net direct employer contribution rate up to three percentage points above the rate otherwise provided in law, and it adds a new provision directing that surplus funds collected in fiscal years ending on or after December 31, 2008, be credited to the funding deposit account when the board sets a direct employer contribution rate above the minimum recommended rate.
In practical terms, the bill gives the fund’s board additional flexibility to collect and reserve employer contributions for pension funding purposes. It does not create a new benefit for members, but it changes how employer contributions may be set and how excess collections are handled within the Sheriffs' Pension and Relief Fund.
Impact
The bill amends R.S. 11:2175.1, which governs the Sheriffs' Pension and Relief Fund’s funding deposit account, by expanding the board of trustees’ authority over employer contribution rates and earmarking certain surplus collections for the account. Its effect is limited to the sheriffs’ retirement system and the employers participating in that system, primarily affecting contribution policy, fund reserves, and actuarial funding practices rather than benefit eligibility or benefit formulas.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial. It passed the House 89-0 and the Senate 36-0, and the context identifies it as having no fiscal impact on appropriations. The unanimous votes suggest general agreement that the measure was a technical or administrative adjustment to pension funding authority rather than a disputed policy change.
Contention
No significant opposition is reflected in the available record. The only potentially sensitive issue is the board’s expanded ability to require employer contributions above the existing baseline and to capture surplus collections in the funding deposit account, which could affect participating employers’ costs and cash flow. However, the unanimous committee-free legislative history indicates that any such concerns were not contentious enough to generate recorded debate or dissent.