Upload
freya
View
49
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Retirement Benefits in Florida Governments. David S. T. Matkin , PhD Research Fellow, LeRoy Collins Institute Assistant Professor of Public Administration Florida State University Florida Clerks and Comptrollers Meeting June 11 th , 2012. Agenda. Municipal Pension Plans - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Retirement Benefits in Florida Governments
David S. T. Matkin, PhDResearch Fellow, LeRoy Collins Institute
Assistant Professor of Public AdministrationFlorida State University
Florida Clerks and Comptrollers Meeting
June 11th, 2012
Agenda
• Municipal Pension Plans– Cities and Special Districts– Size and source of the problem– Possible solutions
• Other Post-Employment Benefits– City and County– What are they?– Potential problem?– Governmental responses?
Municipal Pension Plans
• Defined Benefit Plans• Trends in Assets & Liabilities• Actuarial Assumptions• Annual Costs• Retirement Payments
TABLE 1: GRADING SUMMARY
GRADE PERCENT FUNDED NUMBER OF CITIES
RECEIVING
PERCENTAGE OF CITIES RECEIVING
A
More than 90% funded
30
14%
B 80 to 90% funded 48 23% C 70 to 80% funded 63 30% D 60 to 70% funded 36 17% F
Less than 60% funded 31 15%
Pension Plan Grades
LEROY COLLINS INSTITUTE RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations
Recommendations for state government on health benefits:
1. Among other options, Florida lawmakers should give much consideration to repealing current Florida law requiring the implicit subsidization of healthcare benefits for Florida local governmental retirees.
2. State oversight by a relevant state agency should be provided in statute to manage local retiree health benefit obligations. This agency should establish standards and provide technical assistance, if desired, to local government staff and local officials.
Recommendations Recommendations for state and local governments on
administration and transparency:1. Municipalities should set a minimum contribution rate to ensure minimal
contribution levels during good years and reduce the need to significantly increase contributions during periods of fiscal stress.
2. The statutory restrictions on the use of premium tax dollars that link increases in tax premium funds to the provision of additional benefits should be reduced or removed. Municipalities and counties should be able to use premium tax dollars to cover their current pension obligations.
3. Localities should improve the accessibility of funding, actuarial reporting and liabilities information to its taxpayers.
COUNTY AND CITY OPEB PLANS
The OPEB Concept
• Other Post-Employment Benefits– Retirement insurance subsidies (primarily healthcare)
• Explicit and Implicit Benefits
What did governments do?Increase Benefits?
What did governments do?Decrease Benefits
YEAR 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total
Qualifications Made More Restrictive 1 1 2
Reduce Size of Defined-Benefit 1 1
Switch from Percent-Benefit to Defined-Benefit Value
1 1 1 1 1 5
Reduce Size of Percent-Benefit 1 1 1 2 1 6
Capped Benefit at the Current Level 1 1 2 4
Explicit Benefit to Defined Contribution 1 1 2
Closed Explicit Benefit 4 1 1 1 4 2 13
Plan Reduction Totals 9 6 332 2 6 4 1 3
What did governments do?• Fund the Liability
– Explicit Benefits (n=67)• Pay-as-you-go = 45• Prefund (Non-GAAP qualified) = 4• Prefund (GAAP qualified) = 18
– Implicit Benefits (n=83)• Pay-as-you-go = 76• Prefund (Non-GAAP qualified) = 2• Prefund (GAAP qualified) = 5
What did governments do?• Explicit Benefits, FY2010
What did governments do?• Implicit Benefits, FY2010
Recommendations
Recommendations for local governments on retiree benefits:
1. The minimum age before a retiree qualifies for benefits should be gradually raised. A reasonable age to begin receiving benefits could be approximately 60.
2. Localities should not include overtime or additional earnings/bonus pay in the base salary used to calculate pension benefits.
Questions and Discussion