Rep. Echols moves amendment to let small towns opt into reduced police retirement plan
Loading...
Summary
House Bill 31, sponsored by Rep. Echols, would allow small municipalities (population band proposed 1,950–2,950) such as Sterlington to adopt a lower‑benefit 'Plan C' (a 5% plan) preserving death and duty disability benefits while reducing other costs; committee adopted amendments and reported the bill as amended.
The committee heard House Bill 31 on April 9, a bill by Representative Echols that responds to administrative and affordability concerns for small municipalities that participate in the Municipal Police Employees Retirement System.
Rep. Echols said the measure—and the amendment package adopted in committee—creates a 'Plan C' (described in committee as a 5% plan) that would require no member contribution but set the employer contribution at the actuarial cost of administering the plan. The plan would preserve death benefits and line‑of‑duty disability income but reduce other benefit elements compared with a full defined‑benefit package. Sponsors discussed targeting the plan to towns with populations in a band between 1,950 and 2,950 people and considered adding a second filter based on the number of full‑time officers (for example, municipalities with 5–12 officers) to narrow applicability.
Rep. Echols said the change is voluntary: municipalities must enact a local ordinance following the statutory procedure to opt in. Laura Gail Sullivan of the Municipal Police Employees Retirement System told the committee stakeholders were continuing technical work and that additional floor amendments may be needed to restrict applicability to employers that participate with or without Social Security as appropriate.
Committee action: After discussion about the scope and concerns about a concept amendment, the committee adopted the written amendment set (technical title fixes, Plan C creation, population band adjustments, timing rules for employer elections) and, without objection, reported HB 31 as amended from committee.
Implications: Sponsors said the measure aims to help small towns that currently cannot afford full benefits provide baseline protections for officers and their families; opponents and some members asked for additional limits or clearer officer‑count bands to avoid unintentionally expanding eligibility.
