Boulder City seeks limited PERS exemption to hire retired Nevada public employees; PERS staff calls fiscal risk small under proposed limits

Boulder City officials presented AB27 to the Assembly Government Affairs Committee on Feb. 20, asking the Legislature to allow small local governments to hire retired Nevada public employees without suspending their Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) retirement allowances, subject to specific safeguards.

Mayor Joe Hardy and City Attorney Brittney Walker said the measure grew from workforce shortages in smaller jurisdictions and the city’s difficulty retaining specialized staff such as building officials, public-works and finance directors. "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 told the committee.

Under current PERS rules, retirees who return to covered employment typically suspend retirement allowance checks; exceptions exist (for example, a critical shortage exemption) but Boulder City says those exemptions are not always applicable. AB27 would add an exception limited to cities with populations under 25,000 and counties under 100,000, cap the number of retirees a public employer may hire at five, prohibit rehiring into the exact same position from which a member retired, and require the employer to continue paying PERS contributions on those wages (the retired member would not re-enter the system while receiving retirement allowances).

The bill drew both support and concern. Supporters — including representatives of North Las Vegas officials and the Nevada Association of Counties — said the change would broaden the pool of experienced applicants for smaller jurisdictions. Opponents such as the Professional Firefighters of Nevada argued the bill could reduce opportunities for younger workers and raised fairness and anti-nepotism concerns.

Tina Liss, Executive Officer of PERS, told the committee that while staff generally scrutinize return-to-work provisions for actuarial, operational and Internal Revenue Code compliance risks, the system’s actuary reviewed AB27’s narrow limitations and advised that the bill would not cause a measurable cost to PERS as written. Liss said the PERS retirement board had not taken a formal board position yet and that staff recommended a neutral posture to the board at the next meeting.

Ending: The committee heard public testimony in support and opposition and closed the hearing; no committee vote was recorded at the session.