Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Financial Report topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Authority reports continued solvency; benefits payouts drove negative contribution variance
Summary
Finance staff said the fund remains solvent with a projected year‑end balance near $575 million, but benefits paid exceeded budget driving a large negative variance in net activity year‑to‑date.
Get email alerts on the Financial Report topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
At the Jan. 9 meeting the Connecticut Paid Leave Authority’s finance director reviewed November results, a December preview and year‑end projections, reporting the fund remains solvent but noting higher‑than‑budgeted benefit payments.
For November, operating expenses were about $1.5 million; the authority recorded a positive operating variance for the month but a negative net contribution activity of roughly $42.3 million driven primarily by benefits paid. Finance staff said benefits paid for November totaled approximately $43.6 million, noting the authority reimbursed its administrator, Aflac, for five weeks of payments in that month, averaging about $8.7 million per week for the period cited. Contribution receipts for the month were $464,000 and fund recovery work used bond funds ($122,000 spent in November).
Year‑to‑date activity showed a negative variance of about $33.8 million (approximately $21.8 million worse than budget), again largely due to benefit payments exceeding earlier estimates. The contribution fund balance was presented as just under $600 million and the finance director said the fund is expected to remain solvent; projected year‑end fund balance was roughly $575 million.
A December preview showed benefits paid in December at about $34.1 million (averaging $8.5 million per week), contributions of about $1.2 million and interest of about $2.3 million. The finance director said the weekly run rate typically falls in December and rises in January. The finance committee discussed actuarial reports and reviewed regular financial statements but no action was taken at the meeting.
Board members asked no substantive follow‑up questions at the end of the finance presentation.

