Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fiscal Impacts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Regents task force flags fiscal and statutory issues for phased‑retirement recommendations
Summary
Task force members focused on fiscal uncertainty, benefit‑eligibility definitions, and potential funding sources; staff presented a preliminary projection that increasing ORP contributions could raise system costs by about $11 million, and members requested institution‑level scenarios before further action.
Task force discussion turned to fiscal impacts and statutory constraints after hearing program models from Pennsylvania and Loyola. Elizabeth, task force staff, reviewed system projections and flagged areas that require further vetting before a policy recommendation can be made.
Elizabeth presented a projection prepared by system staff that "there would be an increase of a of a little over 11,000,000" if the ORP employer contribution moved from 6.2% to 8% (Elizabeth, Task force staff). She cautioned that the figure is preliminary, that appropriation of those dollars by the legislature is not guaranteed, and that actual fiscal impact depends on the number of participants and whether institutions replace retired faculty with adjuncts or full hires.
Members spent substantial time on benefit eligibility questions: whether an employee in a phased program should be classified as "active/full time" for the Office of Group Benefits (OGB) and retirement participation purposes, or treated as part‑time or as a retiree and rehire. An OGB representative explained the agency typically views employees as active or retired and said that agencies define full‑time status in accordance with federal and state law; if a participant is not considered active for OGB purposes, they could lose coverage and might not regain it upon later retirement.
Officials also compared leave conversion and payout rules across retirement systems (TRSL, LASERS, ORP) as they considered whether ORP members should receive comparable leave payouts. The task force discussed Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL) payments as a potential funding source and noted a prior projection of about $80–81 million that legislators could reappropriate, though that remains contingent.
No final fiscal decision was adopted. Members asked staff to provide institution‑level fiscal scenarios, invite NASRA and ORP providers for the next meeting, and report back on statutory constraints and potential funding options.
