Retirement System; modifies for new employees all defined benefit retirement plans. (HB1189)
Introduced By
Del. Lacey Putney (I-Bedford) with support from co-patrons Del. Bob Brink (D-Arlington), Del. Johnny Joannou (D-Portsmouth), and Del. Chris Jones (R-Suffolk)
Progress
✓ |
Introduced |
✓ |
Passed Committee |
✓ |
Passed House |
✓ |
Passed Senate |
✓ |
Signed by Governor |
☐ |
Became Law |
Description
Virginia Retirement System; new employees. Modifies for new employees all the defined benefit retirement plans administered by the Virginia Retirement System ("VRS"), as follows: (i) requires employee to contribute five percent of creditable compensation, (ii) reduces the portion of the increase in the Consumer Price Index used for determining annual retirement allowance supplements ("COLA") from three percent plus one-half percent of the additional increase up to seven percent, to two percent plus one-half percent of the additional increase up to six percent. The bill also decreases the Commonwealth's contribution for employees of certain optional retirement plans by one percent of creditable compensation.
In addition to these modifications, for new state and local employees covered under the main defined benefit plan (i.e. excluding the separate plans for state and local law enforcement employees and judges), the bill (i) reduces the average final compensation multiplier from 1.70 percent to 1.65 percent, (ii) increases the number of months used to calculate average final compensation from 36 to 60, and (iii) changes the condition for unreduced early retirement benefits from 50 years of age and 30 years of creditable service, to one whereby the sum of age plus years of service equals 90. Read the Bill »
Outcome
History
Date | Action |
---|---|
01/13/2010 | Committee |
01/13/2010 | Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/13/10 10103075D |
01/13/2010 | Referred to Committee on Appropriations |
01/19/2010 | Assigned App. sub: Compensation and Retirement |
01/28/2010 | Impact statement from VRS (HB1189) |
02/11/2010 | Subcommittee recommends reporting with amendment(s) (7-Y 0-N) |
02/12/2010 | Reported from Appropriations with substitute (21-Y 0-N) (see vote tally) |
02/12/2010 | Committee substitute printed 10104949D-H1 |
02/14/2010 | Read first time |
02/15/2010 | Read second time |
02/15/2010 | Committee substitute agreed to 10104949D-H1 |
02/15/2010 | Engrossed by House - committee substitute HB1189H1 |
02/16/2010 | Read third time and passed House (80-Y 19-N) |
02/16/2010 | VOTE: --- PASSAGE (80-Y 19-N) (see vote tally) |
02/17/2010 | Constitutional reading dispensed |
02/17/2010 | Referred to Committee on Finance |
02/18/2010 | Impact statement from VRS (HB1189H1) |
02/21/2010 | Reported from Finance with substitute (15-Y 0-N) (see vote tally) |
02/21/2010 | Committee substitute printed 10105501D-S1 |
02/23/2010 | Constitutional reading dispensed (40-Y 0-N) (see vote tally) |
02/24/2010 | Amendment by Senator agreed to |
02/24/2010 | Read third time |
02/24/2010 | Reading of substitute waived |
02/24/2010 | Committee substitute agreed to 10105501D-S1 |
02/24/2010 | Passed by temporarily |
02/24/2010 | Reading of amendment waived |
02/24/2010 | Amendment by Senator Whipple agreed to |
02/24/2010 | Passed by for the day |
02/25/2010 | Read third time |
02/25/2010 | Amendment by Senator Whipple reconsidered (40-Y 0-N) (see vote tally) |
02/25/2010 | Amendment by Senator Whipple rejected |
02/25/2010 | Committee substitute reconsidered (40-Y 0-N) (see vote tally) |
02/25/2010 | Committee substitute rejected 10105501D-S1 |
02/25/2010 | Floor substitute printed 10105675D-S2 (Norment) |
02/25/2010 | Reading of substitute waived |
02/25/2010 | Substitute by Senator Norment agreed to 10105675D-S2 |
02/25/2010 | Engrossed by Senate - floor substitute HB1189S2 |
02/25/2010 | Passed Senate with substitute (40-Y 0-N) (see vote tally) |
02/26/2010 | Placed on Calendar |
03/01/2010 | Senate substitute rejected by House 10105675D-S2 (0-Y 99-N) |
03/01/2010 | VOTE: --- REJECTED (0-Y 99-N) (see vote tally) |
03/03/2010 | Impact statement from VRS (HB1189S1) |
03/03/2010 | Impact statement from VRS (HB1189S2) |
03/03/2010 | Senate insisted on substitute (40-Y 0-N) (see vote tally) |
03/03/2010 | Senate requested conference committee |
03/03/2010 | House acceded to request |
03/03/2010 | Conferees appointed by Senate |
03/03/2010 | Senators: Whipple, Watkins, Reynolds |
03/03/2010 | Conferees appointed by House |
03/03/2010 | Delegates: Putney, Jones, Joannou |
03/11/2010 | Conference substitute printed 10106002D-H2 |
03/11/2010 | Conference report agreed to by House (85-Y 13-N) |
03/11/2010 | VOTE: --- ADOPTION (85-Y 13-N) (see vote tally) |
03/11/2010 | Conference report agreed to by Senate (38-Y 1-N) (see vote tally) |
03/22/2010 | Enrolled |
03/22/2010 | Bill text as passed House and Senate (HB1189ER) |
03/22/2010 | Signed by Speaker |
03/25/2010 | Signed by President |
04/07/2010 | Impact statement from VRS (HB1189ER) |
04/13/2010 | G Approved by Governor-Chapter 737 (effective 7/1/10) |
04/13/2010 | G Acts of Assembly Chapter text (CHAP0737) |
Comments
The changes regarding years of service/age negatively affect the law enforcement officers and fire fighters of Virginia. 50 years of age with 20 years of service is difficult to accomplish, and these careers lead to well documented shortened life expectancy, even after retirement.
This bill is a disaster in the making. Virginia will not be able to retain public servants who give unselfishly of their time and energy for the good of the Commonwealth. Why would anyone graduating from college want to enter education, law enforcement, etc with the promisory note of a properly funded retirement in exchange for a short changed salary to be permanently altered at the expense of the people. I am sincerly disappointed in Delegate Putney for sponsoring this bill. Surely his constituents will make note of this in the next election.
This simply shows the sad state of affairs that has been produced in the state of Virginia and across the nation in general in reference to those individuals who spend their life in public service. I never expected to see the VRS threatened in this manner. People, teachers, deserve better. The next election will bring about change from the voters.
This bill will ultimately hurt Public Safety. The thought of cutting retirement to anyone who serves in this field is unsettling. It is a documented fact that public safety officials do not have a long life expectancy. Public safety already gives as much as they can, even when the Commonwealth is in a budget crunch we sacrifice services as well as much needed cost of living raises. We are not getting rich doing these jobs, and we are not asking to, we just want to know the stae is behind us like we are behind them. The next election should reflect the aforementioned.