Note: I have updated the post below with additional documents at the end including copies of the available testimony.
There was a great deal of confusion about what the bill actually did and several areas where the bill admittedly did not do what was intended as explained by the proponents. In short, it was a poorly drafted bill and did not appear to be well vetted before it was introduced.
Rep. Lunn testified in support of the bill and explained it was not his intent "in this bill" to include KP&F. I believe the "in this bill" was an effort to differentiate between this bill and HB2416 which clearly included KP&F. I also believe this bill would not have been scheduled for a hearing with KP&F included. Proponent testimony from the Kansas Policy Institute was presented by Dave Trabert. It included of some examples of state employees whose retirement was increased by the payment of accruals. Only one exceeded the 15 % increase triggering the employer payment of the actuarial costs. No examples of local increases were presented. Written testimony in support of the bill was provided by the Kansas Chamber and by Saline County Commissioner, Dave Smith. The proponents were unable to provide any data on the frequency of these increases.
The KPERS testimony included data. You can see in that data that at the end of 2013 there were only 5,274 pre-1993 local KPERS members. Over all KPERS retirement plans about 20% have any increase in their retirement due to accrual payments. That would be about 1055 members still working who can be expected to have accruals figure into their final average salary. Over all KPERS retirement plans about 0.2% have an increase in their retirement exceeding the 15% rule. That would be about 11 members still working who can be expected to have accruals figure into their final average salary. There were 5,237 pre-1993 state KPERS members and 14,192 pre-1993 teacher KPERS members as of the end of 2013. The number of pre-1993 members goes down by about 10% a year. So the problem this bill is aimed at is for a small percentage of the active members of KPERS and those numbers are quickly dropping toward zero. The reduction in the unfunded actuarial liability if this bill passes is about 0.5% of the total UAL of the affected plans. There also would be a very small reduction in the employer payments of about0.07% for local KPERS, 0.18% for state KPERS, and 0.04 for teachers.
The plan is to put this topic into an interim committee for study. Let's hope it is placed into an interim pensions committee and not into a committee with limited experience in KPERS issues.