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

Bill Has Passed

History

DateAction
01/13/2010Committee
01/13/2010Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/13/10 10103075D
01/13/2010Referred to Committee on Appropriations
01/19/2010Assigned App. sub: Compensation and Retirement
01/28/2010Impact statement from VRS (HB1189)
02/11/2010Subcommittee recommends reporting with amendment(s) (7-Y 0-N)
02/12/2010Reported from Appropriations with substitute (21-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/12/2010Committee substitute printed 10104949D-H1
02/14/2010Read first time
02/15/2010Read second time
02/15/2010Committee substitute agreed to 10104949D-H1
02/15/2010Engrossed by House - committee substitute HB1189H1
02/16/2010Read third time and passed House (80-Y 19-N)
02/16/2010VOTE: --- PASSAGE (80-Y 19-N) (see vote tally)
02/17/2010Constitutional reading dispensed
02/17/2010Referred to Committee on Finance
02/18/2010Impact statement from VRS (HB1189H1)
02/21/2010Reported from Finance with substitute (15-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/21/2010Committee substitute printed 10105501D-S1
02/23/2010Constitutional reading dispensed (40-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/24/2010Amendment by Senator agreed to
02/24/2010Read third time
02/24/2010Reading of substitute waived
02/24/2010Committee substitute agreed to 10105501D-S1
02/24/2010Passed by temporarily
02/24/2010Reading of amendment waived
02/24/2010Amendment by Senator Whipple agreed to
02/24/2010Passed by for the day
02/25/2010Read third time
02/25/2010Amendment by Senator Whipple reconsidered (40-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/25/2010Amendment by Senator Whipple rejected
02/25/2010Committee substitute reconsidered (40-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/25/2010Committee substitute rejected 10105501D-S1
02/25/2010Floor substitute printed 10105675D-S2 (Norment)
02/25/2010Reading of substitute waived
02/25/2010Substitute by Senator Norment agreed to 10105675D-S2
02/25/2010Engrossed by Senate - floor substitute HB1189S2
02/25/2010Passed Senate with substitute (40-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/26/2010Placed on Calendar
03/01/2010Senate substitute rejected by House 10105675D-S2 (0-Y 99-N)
03/01/2010VOTE: --- REJECTED (0-Y 99-N) (see vote tally)
03/03/2010Impact statement from VRS (HB1189S1)
03/03/2010Impact statement from VRS (HB1189S2)
03/03/2010Senate insisted on substitute (40-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
03/03/2010Senate requested conference committee
03/03/2010House acceded to request
03/03/2010Conferees appointed by Senate
03/03/2010Senators: Whipple, Watkins, Reynolds
03/03/2010Conferees appointed by House
03/03/2010Delegates: Putney, Jones, Joannou
03/11/2010Conference substitute printed 10106002D-H2
03/11/2010Conference report agreed to by House (85-Y 13-N)
03/11/2010VOTE: --- ADOPTION (85-Y 13-N) (see vote tally)
03/11/2010Conference report agreed to by Senate (38-Y 1-N) (see vote tally)
03/22/2010Enrolled
03/22/2010Bill text as passed House and Senate (HB1189ER)
03/22/2010Signed by Speaker
03/25/2010Signed by President
04/07/2010Impact statement from VRS (HB1189ER)
04/13/2010G Approved by Governor-Chapter 737 (effective 7/1/10)
04/13/2010G Acts of Assembly Chapter text (CHAP0737)

Video

This bill was discussed on the floor of the General Assembly. Below is all of the video that we have of that discussion, 17 clips in all, totaling 57 minutes.

Comments

Thomas Crouch writes:

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.

Jay Whitehead writes:

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.

ed carrier writes:

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.

Wallace Chadwick writes:

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.