Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the State Legislation Pensions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board reviews Senate Bill 388 proposal that would change pension contributions and benefit formulas
Summary
Members of the Evansville City Police and Firefighters Pension Board discussed proposed state Senate Bill 388, which would change member contribution rates and increase retirement benefit percentages for certain police pension funds if enacted.
Get email alerts on the State Legislation Pensions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board members discussed state-level legislation identified in the meeting as Senate Bill 388, describing potential changes to member contribution rates and retirement benefit calculations for the 1977 Police Officers and Firefighters Pension Disability Fund.
Chief Phil Smith summarized the provisions, telling members the bill "increases the basic monthly pension benefit payable to the member of the 1977 fund" for officers retiring after June 30, 2025, and would raise the fund member contribution rate from 6% to 6.5% for first-class patrolmen during the member's employment period (or 32 years, whichever is shorter). Smith said the bill also clarifies benefit formulas, citing an increase in the replacement-factor percentage from about 52% to about 53% of the first-class patrolman monthly salary for members retiring after June 30, 2025.
Smith emphasized the bill language affects contribution responsibilities and that the city's share of costs appears likely to increase under the proposal. He also noted the bill had passed a third reading in February in the lower chamber and was in the state senate at the time of the meeting; no final state action was recorded during the board meeting.
Board members asked clarifying questions about how contributions and health benefits would be affected if a retired officer takes subsequent employment; Smith cautioned that provisions are complex and said the board had received only a synopsis and some clarifications by counsel. The board did not take formal action on the legislation; the discussion was recorded for informational purposes and to prepare members to respond to constituent questions.
The board flagged the bill as time-sensitive: members noted a short window for municipal responses if the legislature acts before the end of June.
