Senate Retirement Committee ranks 10 retirement bills for actuarial study, places post‑retirement COLA bill first

The Senate Retirement Committee voted to prioritize ten retirement-related bills for actuarial study and placed Senate Bill 339, a proposal to provide semiannual post‑retirement benefit adjustments, at the top of its list.

The prioritization matters because actuarial studies determine the fiscal impact and cost estimates the state uses when considering benefit changes. Committee members said they wanted to avoid duplicate studies and spare taxpayers from paying two separate actuarial analyses on closely related measures.

Committee Chair (title given in the transcript as “Mister chairman”) opened the meeting by noting the committee had “passed out about 10 bills to get actuarial studies,” and said members wanted to “prioritize 1 to 10 our bills” so the House and Senate would not both pay for the same analysis. Senator McLaren then proposed that Senate Bill 339 be listed first; the committee approved that placement unanimously by voice/show of hands. "That's unanimous, thank you, good move," the chair said after the vote.

The committee discussed and assigned ranking positions to the bills that had previously been released for study. Members repeatedly said the goal was to narrow the set of bills that would actually proceed to formal actuarial requests, with some suggesting a practical target of six to eight items while still listing all ten so the House would see the full Senate priorities.

Two related bills affecting the legislative retirement system — Senate Bill 157 and Senate Bill 198 — were combined in committee practice so they would be processed together for actuarial review. Members referred to that combination informally as a "BOGO" (buy‑one‑get‑one), and the chair confirmed both bills would be included while the committee counted the combined placement toward its list.

The committee's prioritized list, as discussed in the meeting, included (in the order recorded on the audio):

- No. 1: Senate Bill 339 — Employees' Retirement System: semiannual post‑retirement benefit adjustments for beneficiaries (sponsor cited in transcript: Senator O'Rourke). - No. 2: Senate Bill 261 — Magistrate's Retirement Fund: early retirement benefit provisions (sponsor cited: Senator Harbin). - Senate Bill 150 — permit public school systems to employ certain beneficiaries of the Teachers Retirement System of Georgia (sponsor cited: Senator Hickman) was added to the prioritized set. - Senate Bill 157 and Senate Bill 198 — two measures concerning the Georgia Legislative Retirement System (one allowing certain former members to buy into the legislative retirement system and one increasing multipliers for members) were combined for study so they would be processed together. - Senate Bill 11 — credible service for certain military service (sponsor cited: Senator Rhett) was placed on the list. - Senate Bill 209 — Teachers Retirement System/ Public School Employees Retirement System provisions (sponsor cited: Senator Goodman) was placed on the list. - Senate Bill 342 — Emergency Communications Authority: increase in the percentage of 9‑1‑1 charges remitted to the Peace Officers Annuity and Benefit Fund (sponsor cited: Senator Albers) was placed on the list. - Senate Bill 216 — Georgia Judicial Retirement System membership (sponsor cited: Senator Robertson) was placed on the list. - Senate Bill 143 — Georgia Firefighter Pension Fund matters (sponsor cited: chairman Albers) was added late in the session and recorded as one of the prioritized items.

Committee members said several factors drove their choices: constituent interest, perceived urgency for retirees (in particular comments about long gaps since cost‑of‑living adjustments), and whether a similar study was expected from the House. Several senators argued that if the House was not submitting a study on a particular issue, the Senate should do so to ensure the state had the necessary fiscal information.

No formal dollar figures or effective dates for any measures were provided in the meeting; members repeatedly said actuarial work was required to determine fiscal impact. The committee also noted the state auditor's and legislative counsel's roles in reviewing and processing actuarial study requests but no representative from the state audits office was present.

The meeting concluded with the chair thanking members and noting the committee would transmit its prioritized requests; committee members also said they might convene another meeting or use supplemental filings to supply additional information for related bills.

Votes at a glance: the committee approved the prioritized submission of the listed measures for actuarial study; most placements were decided by show of hands with no recorded opposition during the meeting and at least one unanimous placement for Senate Bill 339.

The committee adjourned after the ranking votes were completed.