Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pensions Pers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appropriations panel OKs PERS IT cost‑to‑continue and one‑time development funding; 2 FTEs moved into bill
Summary
The House Appropriations Government Operations Division approved a PERS request to fund IT cost‑to‑continue and one‑time contractual development work, and agreed to include two new FTEs in the bill; committee members pressed for details about licensing, contractors and long‑term staffing needs following closure of the defined benefit plan.
The House Appropriations Government Operations Division on Monday approved two budget items requested by the Public Employees Retirement System and moved two full‑time positions into the agency bill while reserving follow‑up detail for an amendment.
The committee approved a $298,906 ongoing cost‑to‑continue request for information technology and a $539,595 one‑time request for contractual development work. Committee members also agreed to carry two FTEs — an enrollment specialist and an accounting position — into the bill, with committee members asking staff to include the precise amendment language and cost breakdown for the full committee.
The vote followed extended discussion about what the IT increases pay for and whether additional staff should be permanent. Derek Cobine, Chief Operating and Financial Officer for PERS, told the committee that the $298,906 “is the increase for 2 things. First, it's licensing fees that we pay to use our business software. It's the development of our business system and then it's also the increase to NDIT that we're expecting to have next biennium.” Cobine said the sum reflects projected new rates from NDIT and ongoing licensing, not a request for expanded services.
Cobine described the $539,595 request as one‑time contractual funding to add developers and a project manager through the agency’s contractor to finish four large projects, including an online retirement paperwork process and enrollment “wizards.” He said the developers are contract staff provided through Sagitec and are not state employees: “These would all be contractual people. They would not be temps. They would not be salaries,” he said. “It's all part of Sagitec who does the development work on our business system. So it's all operational funds. No salary funds.”
Representatives pressed the agency for detail on staff needs tied to the state’s recent pension changes. Representative Meyer asked about the permanence of an accounting specialist and an enrollment specialist after the closure of the main defined benefit plan; Cobine said some workload changes will be long‑lasting because older closed plans still require administration. He warned the agency’s staffing needs will evolve but will not disappear: “The work efforts not gonna go away for 40, 50 years on the retirement plan the way that it sits.”
Committee members provided the cost estimates for the two FTEs during the discussion: Representative Pyle cited $239,016 for support and $203,648 for enrollment, plus roughly $3,750 each for office setup. The committee directed staff to draft an amendment that moves the two positions into the bill and to prepare that amendment for the next meeting.
Members also clarified that the one‑time $539,595 request is intended to be temporary and that the licensing and NDIT charges would become part of the agency’s ongoing base budget: “The licensing fee is part of the 298,906… Those are the ongoing costs,” Cobine said.
What next: staff will draft the amendment language carrying the two FTEs and the approved IT items into the department’s bill. Committee members asked for the amendment language and supporting detail before advancing the item to the full committee.
