Relating to the Deputy Sheriff Retirement System Act
Summary
House Bill 4803 amends the Deputy Sheriff Retirement System Act to change how employer contributions are set and to create a new annual annuity adjustment for certain retirees and surviving spouses. The bill authorizes the Consolidated Public Retirement Board to determine the employer contribution rate actuarially, rather than relying on a fixed statutory rate, and caps county commission contributions at 13 percent of payroll after the first year in which the plan becomes eligible for the new adjustment. It also applies the same board-determined contribution approach to concurrent employers for deputy sheriffs who have covered additional employment in another public retirement system.
The bill adds a new section establishing a 1 percent annual retirement annuity adjustment for eligible deputy sheriff retirants age 60 or older, certain other retirants, and surviving spouses receiving benefits under the plan. The adjustment is available only when the plan’s most recent actuarial valuation shows a funded level of at least 105 percent, and it is not retroactive. Payments would begin on July 1 of each year when the funding threshold is met, with pro rata treatment for some beneficiaries who have not yet received benefits for a full year.
Impact
HB4803 would amend West Virginia Code §7-14D-7 and add §7-14D-11a, directly affecting the funding and benefit structure of the Deputy Sheriff Retirement System. It shifts employer contribution-setting authority to the Consolidated Public Retirement Board, ties contribution levels to actuarial determinations, and preserves a 13 percent payroll cap after the first year the plan qualifies for the new annuity adjustment. The bill also creates a new ongoing benefit enhancement for eligible retirees and surviving spouses, conditioned on the plan maintaining a 105 percent funded ratio.
Sentiment
The bill appears generally supportive of deputy sheriff retirees and surviving spouses by adding a modest cost-of-living-style annuity adjustment, while also attempting to preserve fiscal discipline through actuarial funding triggers and contribution-rate oversight. Because there are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided materials, there is no documented opposition or support beyond the bill’s text and stated purpose. The overall framing suggests a balanced approach: benefit enhancement paired with funding safeguards.
Contention
The main potential point of contention is fiscal impact, especially whether allowing a 1 percent annual annuity adjustment could increase long-term liabilities for the retirement system and county employers. Counties and employer representatives may be concerned about contribution rates, since the bill gives the board authority to set those rates and preserves a 13 percent cap only after the plan reaches the threshold for the new benefit. Retiree advocates would likely favor the benefit increase, while fiscal stakeholders may focus on the 105 percent funding requirement and the possibility of higher contributions before the cap applies.
Creating exception allowing school service personnel, deputy sheriffs, and correctional officers to be reemployed and work without income limitation while recieving retirement