Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pension Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Employers and retirement administrators tell LCPR: any new plan must be narrowly defined and fully funded
Summary
County, city and state employer representatives and PAR/MSRS officials urged the work group to require precise eligibility language, actuarial stress testing, pre‑funding for past‑service credit and clear cost shares before recommending statutory changes to pension coverage.
County and city associations, state employers and retirement administrators used the LCPR work group to press for guardrails on any expansion of pension eligibility for public‑safety‑adjacent workers.
"Pension plans are a form of deferred compensation," Doug Anderson said while explaining the fiduciary role of plan administrators and the importance of pre‑funding. He warned that past‑service credit "is a shifting of cost from one generation to another" unless fully funded actuarially.
Speakers from the Association of Minnesota Counties and the League of Minnesota Cities described mounting local fiscal pressure — higher county levies and constrained tax bases — and said any benefit design should be assessed for its effect on county and city budgets. One county representative noted recent levy increases and said counties are facing tight capacity to absorb additional ongoing costs.
DOC and DPS presenters described the complexity of state and local job classifications and the administrative burden of determining eligibility under models that rely on 75% contact or similar thresholds. DOC staff cautioned that expanding eligibility without funding could exacerbate personnel and program cuts in a period of already strained budgets.
PAR and MSRS representatives recommended a checklist before the group advances statutory language: precisely define the eligible job classes, run full actuarial cost models (including scenarios for retroactive credit and differing turnover rates), propose amortization and pre‑funding policies, and consider subplans or subbands rather than open eligibility. MSRS staff also reminded the group that different plans carry different demographic and actuarial assumptions — identical benefits can cost materially different amounts for different populations.
No decisions were made. The work group was directed to review the actuary study, attend the August 14 public presentation of the study, and reconvene August 18 to continue plan design and eligibility discussions.
