Assembly Speaker Oceguera proposes retirement system cuts

Assembly Speaker John Oceguera, himself a firefighter, Wednesday proposed a bill that would make measured reductions to the public worker retirement benefits in trade for a commitment not to make major cuts for 10 years.

Oceguera, D-Las Vegas, told the Assembly Government Affairs Committee lawmakers made "pretty significant changes" to the Public Employee Retirement System in the 2009 session and 26th special session of the Legislature. He said those reductions have only been in place for a short time and "we ought to wait a while" before making further changes.

"This is a stable system," he said. "This is a system that is doing well."

But he said there hasn't been enough time to evaluate the impact of the changes already put in place.

Assembly Bill 405, he said, would make at least one further reduction by eliminating the practice of counting call-back pay for police and firefighters when calculating retirement income. There have been complaints that calculation unfairly inflates retirement pay.

Oceguera said in return, the bill would promise no major changes in PERS for 10 years while those reductions are evaluated and that no major changes would be made after that until and unless the system was funded to at least 85 percent of its total liability. The plan is currently just more than 70 percent funded.

PERS currently has assets totaling about $10 billion. It provides retirement benefits to nearly every public sector employee in the state, a total of 183 governmental entities.

System Director Dana Bilyeu said those changes match what her board of directors has already put in policy.

"A 10-year moratorium will clearly provide the system with evidence," she told the committee.

The plan won support from the city of Las Vegas and other governmental entities as well as the Reno-Sparks Chamber of Commerce.

Ron Cuzze of the Nevada State Law Enforcement Officers opposed the change, along with Rusty McAllister of the Professional Firefighters of Nevada. McAllister said while the changes are modest, the debate should really focus on how to fix Nevada's revenue shortfall.

The committee took no action on the bill.