Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pension Retirement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners approve change to retirement-match options; HR presents two match scenarios
Summary
Hardin County Commissioners Court approved moving forward on a retirement-match change after HR presented two match options and their effect on the county’s required contribution rate; the court directed implementation as presented.
Hardin County Commissioners Court on Aug. 26 approved a change to the county’s retirement-match plan after Melinda Harrington, the county human resources director, presented two proposed match options and their projected effects on the required contribution rate to the retirement system.
The matter matters because it affects the county’s actuarial contribution obligations and the retirement benefits available to county employees. Harrington presented two proposed matches described in the packet as a “210% match” and a “225% match,” and she explained the projected required employer contribution rates if the county adopted either option and made a partial lump-sum payment to address unfunded liability.
Harrington told the court that under the 225% match option (including past and future service contributions and a partial lump-sum payment) the required rate would be 14.21%; the county’s current contribution rate is 15.31%. Under the 210% match option (with the lump-sum payment) the required rate would be 11.86%, Harrington said. She said the elected official contribution rate (15.31%) would remain unchanged regardless of which match is chosen and that the change would be made retroactive as presented in the proposal.
Commissioner Kirkendall moved the adoption of the presented match option (as described in the HR proposal); Commissioner Young and others spoke in support. Commissioner Young said, “The fact that we were able to offer this and not affect the county budget is a huge win.” The court voted to approve the change and to implement the option as presented; the motion passed.
Discussion vs. action: Harrington’s presentation and commissioners’ remarks were discussion. The court took formal action to approve the retirement-match option as brought forward and directed HR to implement it retroactively per the proposal, including any associated lump-sum payment and employer-rate adjustments described on the record.
Officials noted this was the result of benefits-committee work and emphasized the committee’s role in developing the proposal.
