UAGE meets with Director of Utah Retirement System
UAGE Staff and State Board of Directors meet with the Director of the Utah Retirement System on September 17, 2009.
The changes to the Utah Retirement System (URS) began with the announcement that over $4 Billion had been lost through investments in 2009. This is significant for every public employee to take note of for there are Utah State Legislators who have been trying to change the URS to a “Defined Contribution” system which would give the employee a 401 (k) instead of the current Defined Benefit System. What would be the status of the Defined Contribution if this had been allowed to occur?
At the Legislature’s Interim Retirement Committee meeting on September 9th, 2009, the Committee staff announced the loss was closer to $6.5 Billion. At the UAGE meeting on the 17th, Mr. Newman said the loss is at $5 Billion. His next remarks were telling – that in an overall system as healthy as URS a $5 Billion loss is a lot. There are some who believe that a major change to the system is not warranted.
Mr. Newman said that there is an 18 month lag between initiating a contribution rate and actually realizing revenue but he said there was not a way to “invest our way out of this”! There will be a contribution rate increase imposed upon the state and local governments to help make up the difference. Most jurisdictions say they are unable to incorporate the increase so Legislators are looking at ways to change potentially expensive components of the plan.
Well, that’s how it started.
Here are a few of the options being studied for consideration of a final Legislative approach for the 2010 session:
Suspend or Lower Post Retirement contributions to 401(k)
Utah currently has one of the best post-retirement benefit policies. There is political momentum to change the benefit for employees who “double dip” to save money. The concern is whether or not any changes can be legally made to the current employees using the post retirement benefit.
Extend final Average Salary Period
The proposal would allow the salary averages of the highest 5 years to be used in calculating your benefit instead of the top 3 years.
Make COLA’s Discretionary/Delay COLA
COLA’s on retirement disbursements could potentially be deferred until a specific anniversary date has been met – like 3 years after retiring – or until a retiree reaches a certain age ( ex. 65).
Increase Vesting Period
Vesting period for new employees could increase from 4 to 6 years.
Put a minimum age condition on the 30 year benefit
One of the suggestions is to change the minimum age that an employee can retire without a penalty (55, 57, 60, 65). More discussion will reveal whether current employees would be grand fathered.
Partial benefit payments until a certain age
The proposal would allow for an employee to receive partial retirement benefits until they reach a certain age – a form of phased retirement.
Reduce the multiplier
Reducing the retirement multiplier (currently number of years x 2% x 3 highest average salaried years) from 2% to 1.9%. Again, no answer yet on whether current employees would be grand fathered.
Increase 20 year public safety and fire fighter requirement to 25 years
Again we have the unknown factor of whether current employees will be grand fathered.
Put a minimum age condition on the 20 year public safety and fire fighter benefit (48, 50, 52…).
This proposal would change the minimum age that employees can retiree without penalty.
Change back to the contributory system.
Allows employees to participate in funding their retirement benefit but introduces a shift of some of the risk to the employee.
Create a hybrid contributory/non contributory system
This would allow the system to potentially have the employee participate in funding their retirement benefit while still having part of their benefit made up of the non contributory system. For example, employees might contribute 1% – 3% of their own salary to the plan.
Make the retirement benefit option – employees can choose how they would like to participate at the time of hire.
Change the defined benefit system (DB) into a defined contribution (DC) 401(k) system.
Base retirement eligibility on age + years of service
This is patterned after the “rule of 85’ – requires you to have 30 years of service if you plan to retire at the age of 55 = 85. This has proven extremely expensive in past reviews.
The League of Cities and Towns held several meetings with employee organizations, cities and small jurisdictions over the summer. Their recommendation was to return to the Contributory System that the Legislature abandoned in 1986. Legislative leadership at that time felt the Non Contributory System would make the system healthier.
What we may see is a hybrid between the Non Contributory System we have now and the new Contributory plan. An interesting challenge the Legislature has is whether to introduce a new plan into a career that’s already begun, meaning can they do anything different with your plan if you are already in the system? Some indicate, “Yes” as long as the impact is equal on everyone. There is some talk to draw a years of service line, say eighteen years. Everyone over that time would be grand fathered and stay in the Non Contributory System – those under could be subjected to a new choice.
URS is currently 83% funded. Utah’s public employees have a retirement system in much better shape than some others.
One of the most important things readers of this article can do is contact their Legislator and let them know what you feel about this situation.
UAGE will help you identify who that is if you require that help.
UAGE will continue to monitor the drafting of legislation and post the information on this site.
