Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Employee Benefits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reviews GMEBS retirement enhancements with estimated payroll cost up to 5.82%
Summary
A Georgia Municipal Association retirement representative outlined options to raise Demorest employees' retirement benefits — a Rule of 75 provision and a higher benefit multiplier — and presented cost projections. Council asked for more time before pursuing ordinance amendment and formal adoption.
Josh Colley, a retirement representative with the Georgia Municipal Association, presented proposed enhancements to the City of Demorest’s Georgia Municipal Employee Benefit System plan at the March 3 work session. The package under review would raise employee benefits by either adopting a Rule of 75 retirement provision (allowing unreduced retirement when age plus years of service equals 75 and the employee is at least 55), increasing the benefit multiplier from 1.5% to 2.0, or adopting both changes together.
Colley reported the estimated fiscal impacts to the city’s payroll: the Rule of 75 alone would increase annual costs by approximately 1.67% of payroll, the 2.0% multiplier by about 3.6%, and implementing both changes by roughly 5.82%. Illustrative examples presented to the council showed notably higher monthly benefits for employees retiring at age 55 under the proposed options.
City Manager Mark Musselwhite explained that, if the council directs staff to proceed, the city must notify GMA so an amendment to the adoption agreement can be drafted, a process Colley said typically takes four to five weeks; after the amendment is prepared the City Council would need to adopt an ordinance to make the change effective for active and future employees. The council did not take action during the work session and requested additional review time before deciding whether to advance the change to a formal ordinance.
The council’s next steps are to review the cost projections and potential budget impacts and to schedule the item for a future formal meeting if it wishes to proceed. No ordinance vote occurred at the March 3 work session.
