Louisiana State Senate 2013 Session SB1- SB10
by Courtney C Horne @FireezDragon
I am going to be giving a quick 2-3 (sometimes more for more interesting bills) sentence summary of each of the Louisiana State House and Senate 2013 Bills. I will be doing about 10 an entry and a few entries a day until I get caught up. Once I am caught up, I will cover new bills as they are filed. This entry covers Senate Bills 1-10.
Senate Bill 1 (SB1)– (Claitor) Adds tax rebates to the measures not allowed to be introduced during regular session in even numbered years and to the things allowed to be introduced during session in odd numbered years. This is a state constitutional amendment.
Senate Bill 2(SB2) – (Peacock) Adds two additional members to the board of trustees for the Municipal Employees’ Retirement System: the commissioner of administration and The state treasurer. This will increase the board from 9 members to 11.
Senate Bill 4 (SB4) – (E. Guillory) changes the way valuation is calculated for the La. State Employees’ Retirement system and the Teachers’ Retirement System of La. Changes the valuation calculation method from projected unit credit to entry age normal. I looked up the two methods but I don’t speak accountant well enough to know the difference. If I get a brief explanation from someone of the difference I will add it here.
Senate Bill 6 (SB6)- (Allain) updates the criminal statute for unauthorized entry of a place of business to include a combination of physical barriers at least 6 feet high with a body of water as the enclosure barrier. So now you can have a fence on three sides and a bayou on another.
Senate Bill 7 (SB7)- (Peacock) Changes the period averaged over for pay average for state retirement systems from 36 months to 60 months. Makes the amount of increase allowed per year for averaging 15% uniformly from a prior range of percents that varied.
Senate Bill 8 (SB8)– (Gallot) Adds church and other religious buildings to the list of places which a sheriff can have a willing prisoner do manual labor. (It says willing prisoner but I really am skeptical that on a practical level they have much choice in the situation)
(1) The system has a funded ratio of 90% or more and has not granted a benefit increase to retirees, survivors, and beneficiaries in the most recent fiscal year. (2) The system has a funded ratio of 80% or more and has not granted a benefit increase to retirees, survivors, and beneficiaries in either of the two most recent fiscal years. (3) The system has a funded ratio of 70% or more and has not granted a benefit increase to retirees, survivors, and beneficiaries in any of the three most recent fiscal years.
The various systems would have to decide whether to opt into this new law by end of 2013. Otherwise they would state with present law which provides the authority to grant cost-of-living adjustment based on the funded status of that system in 1986, and its progress towards 100% funding by 2016.