Wyoming retirement plan contributions-2.
In one sentence
Not clearly identified in the stored source.
No additional limitations are listed.
Official record
Bill No.: <billno> Drafter: <drafterinit> Bill No.: SF0072 Drafter: DKG LSO No.: 10LSO-0243 Effective Date: 9/1/2010 Enrolled Act No.: SEA0027 Chapter No.: Prime Sponsor: Joint Appropriations Interim Committee Catch Title: Wyoming retirement plan contributions-2. Subject: Public employee retirement plan contributions. Summary/Major Elements: This bill amends contributions required to be made to the state retirement plan. The bill affects only the "big plan" and does not affect the firemen, game warden and highway patrol, EMT or other plans administered by the state retirement system. The "big plan" includes the departments and other agencies of the state, counties, cities, school districts and other political subdivisions and various other entities. Increases the "employee contribution" from 5.57% to 7% of salary. For state employees, the agency will continue to pay the 5.57%, but the employee must pay the additional 1.43% unless the legislature enacts specific legislation authorizing payment of the 1.43% (which would likely be by the budget bill, if at all, in any given year). Other entities participating in the system are authorized to pay any of the additional increase. The employer contribution is increased from 5.68% to 7.12% of salary. The bill appropriates funds to pay the increased employer contributions required of state agencies, the University and community colleges. It also contains a school foundation program appropriation to pay the increased employer contribution required of school districts. Comments: Contains delayed effective date of September 1, 2010.
Public statements
Last checked Aug 8, 10:40 PM
Why they voted this way
The speaker supports the bill because it adopts the Senate's original version after the House withdrew an amendment that prohibited state employers from paying employee contributions, which had created complications for smaller districts.
R · H37
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment based on principles of buy-in and fundamental fairness, believing that when individuals contribute their own money to a system, they value it more.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment because requiring employees to pay for their retirement contributions helps them understand the value of the system, similar to how copays affect healthcare usage decisions.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment because he believes it is fair that everyone has some financial stake or 'skin in the game' regarding their retirement contributions.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because he believes it constitutes micromanaging local government units, while still supporting the underlying bill to fix the retirement system.
H05
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker urges support for the amendment again, arguing that without it, school districts might divert funds meant for classrooms into cost-of-living adjustments instead of retirement contributions.
Why they voted this way
The speaker urges a vote against concurrence to remove the provision and return the bill for further discussion on how it affects special districts and cities differently than state employees.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker argues that reducing contributions by half for one year allows employees with fixed incomes to adjust financially before the full amount takes effect.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes delaying contributions because losing investment income over time creates a significantly larger financial shortfall for the retirement fund.
R · S30
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker believes delaying action on the retirement fund deficit will make the problem worse and urges immediate responsibility.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports a gradual implementation because state employees are already facing financial strain from no pay raises and increased medical costs.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker argues against delaying the contribution because waiting increases the total cost required to catch up, which will eventually fall on employees or the state.
R · S27
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment because state employees with low pay and high caseloads need a graduated approach to absorb the financial impact.
Why they voted this way
The speaker argues that immediate action is necessary because waiting a year would result in returning to address another $50 million shortfall. He states the bill must be passed now to begin addressing the retirement plan's funding gap, even though it requires employees to start paying contributions.
If a lawmaker is not listed, we couldn't find a published reason.
Wyoming roll calls
9 roll calls
Official activity
Changes
3 stored
Adopted 3rd reading by TEETERS
Failed Committee of the Whole by CRAFT
Failed 2nd reading by SESSIONS