Working group agrees to add Metro Transit telecommunicators to proposed MSRS subplan as actuaries flag initial cost

A Legislative Commission on Pensions and Retirement (LCPR) working group discussed draft legislation to create a new MSRS‑administered subplan for probation officers and 911 telecommunicators and agreed to include Metro Transit telecommunicators among the covered titles.

Susan Lancheski, who led the agenda item, said staff had consulted transit managers and the Transit Managers and Supervisors Association and concluded Metro Transit telecommunicators “are very much like your typical 911 telecommunicators,” making them appropriate to include in the new subplan. Metro Transit representatives gave the group operational details to support that assessment.

“My name is Mike. I work over at the transit control center. I’m manager of training over there,” said Michael Holston, who described a cross‑trained operation with 31 current full‑time positions, emergency telephone coverage at bus rapid transit platforms and a yearly call volume in the tens of thousands. Holston said Metro Transit staff combine three roles—police dispatcher, bus supervisor and 911 call taker—and handle both emergency and non‑emergency public‑safety contacts across a large jurisdiction.

Metro Transit management signaled cooperation with the inclusion. Cassie Vali, assistant director of labor relations at the Metropolitan Council, said the council’s formal position was neutral on both inclusion and a proposed 2% employer contribution increase, and staff asked Metro Transit to provide a list of titles and other documentation for the report.

Actuarial staff then reviewed updated cost scenarios for the proposed subplan. Bonnie, the actuary presenting the analysis, said staff ran two new scenarios that excluded 389 legacy members (those eligible for pre‑1989 protections or Rule‑of‑90 provisions), reduced the future‑service multiplier to 1.9%, and used more conservative post‑retirement increase assumptions. “The resulting normal cost as a percent of pay is 15.52%,” Bonnie said for the representative scenario; adding an illustrative share of withdrawal/unfunded liability and normal administrative expenses produced a headline initial total cost presented in the meeting materials of roughly 16.86% as a starting point to be refined.

The group discussed how to set statutory contribution rates. Staff outlined three approaches: (1) require annual contributions at the actuary’s recommended amount (fiduciary best practice but uncommon in state statutory plans), (2) set a fixed initial rate closer to the recommended amount and remeasure over time (staff favored this as a practical match between beneficiaries and payers), or (3) set a lower fixed rate that would take longer to reach full funding. Presenters emphasized the normal cost is expected to decline over time as the initial mature cohort is replaced by newer hires, but warned costs could rise if investment or demographic experience is worse than assumed.

Directors, county representatives and union stakeholders debated employee and employer shares. Several stakeholder representatives urged a compromise that balances near‑term affordability and long‑term funding; comments in the record ranged from support for an employee contribution near 2% to support for a somewhat higher starting employee share (around 2.32%) if needed to improve early funding. Participants also discussed statutory language options to clarify when employees above a certain age would be excluded, because tax counsel advised staff a voluntary opt‑out is not available for a new subplan under existing IRS guidance.

No formal vote was recorded at the meeting; staff said they would: add Metro Transit language to the MSRS subplan section of the report, request a list of Metro Transit titles and call‑volume breakdowns, ask MSRS/PAR to run updated cost exhibits (including a run that excludes members age 60+), and circulate a draft bill and report for review. LCPR staff set an initial deadline for stakeholder commentary on the draft report materials of December 5 and said they will circulate bill drafts for review ahead of the commission.

What’s next: staff will incorporate Metro Transit documentation into the MSRS subplan write‑up, PAR/MSRS will produce refined cost exhibits, and the working group will review the draft bill and report. The group expects continued discussion about the final contribution split and statutory details as staff refines assumptions and runs additional scenarios.

Sources and attribution: quotations and attributions in this article come from working‑group statements recorded in the meeting transcript and listed in the article’s speaker whitelist.