Boulder City bill to allow limited retiree rehiring in small jurisdictions draws mixed reaction

The Assembly Committee on Government Affairs heard AB27, a bill sponsored by Boulder City that would create a narrow exemption allowing retirees to accept public employment in small local governments without suspension of their Public Employees' Retirement System retirement allowance, subject to several safeguards.

Boulder City representatives, including Mayor Joe Hardy and City Attorney Brittney Walker, said the measure aims to expand the pool of qualified candidates for specialized local government roles (for example, building officials and department heads) in jurisdictions that struggle to retain staff and cannot compete on salary with larger urban employers. ‘‘We believe AB27 would provide smaller rural local governments an opportunity to hire qualified and experienced individuals from Nevada while keeping PERS whole and providing safeguards to prevent any abuse to the system,’’ Walker said.

The bill and safeguards

Under current law, a retired PERS member who accepts public employment or certain contracts with a public employer is disqualified from receiving their retirement allowance for the duration of that employment. AB27 would create an exemption for public employers that are cities with populations under 25,000 and counties under 100,000 and would include limits designed to reduce abuse:

- The exemption would not allow a retiree to retire from and immediately return to the identical position for the same public employer; the retiree would not re-enroll in PERS but the employer would still make employer contributions to PERS to keep the system whole; and employers would be limited to hiring no more than five retirees under the exemption.

Support and opposition

Supporters at the hearing included the City of North Las Vegas director of government affairs (Wesley Harper) and the Nevada Association of Counties (Jennifer Berthiaume), both arguing that the policy helps smaller jurisdictions recruit experienced professionals and strengthens local government capacity.

Opponents included the Professional Firefighters of Nevada (President Todd Inglesby), who argued the state already has a ‘‘critical shortage’’ exception, raised concerns about ‘‘double-dipping’’ and asked whether rehired retirees would have the same commitment to the position as nonretiree hires. Inglesby also pressed for safeguards to avoid using titles changes to circumvent rules.

PERS staff position and actuarial view

Tina Liss, executive officer of PERS, told the committee the system’s staff recommended a neutral position to the retirement board. She said PERS staff sought actuarial input and, while the board had not yet taken a formal position at the time of the hearing, the actuary’s opinion was that the bill, as written with the enumerated limits, ‘‘would not have any measurable cost to the system’’ because of the very limited number of eligible rehired retirees and the specific restrictions. Liss added that return-to-work provisions pose tax and operational compliance risks — particularly ensuring a ‘‘bona fide’’ retirement and preventing immediate retire-and-rehire arrangements that could threaten Internal Revenue Code compliance — and those risks informed the recommended limits.

Questions and next steps

Committee members queried whether an actuarial study had been done; PERS staff said a full actuarial valuation was not performed because of time constraints, but the actuary provided an opinion based on the bill’s narrow scope. Members also asked whether the exemption should be statewide or limited; sponsors said they focused on small jurisdictions and acknowledged the legislature might set broader policy.

Ending

Sponsors offered to provide additional information and the committee closed the hearing after receiving testimony for, against and neutral. PERS planned to consider a formal position the next day at the retirement board meeting.