Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pensions Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee discusses PERS pressure and past bonds; officials say bonding 'doesn't always pencil out'
Summary
Members reviewed growing PERS costs, the idea of bonding to reduce unfunded liability, and lessons from districts that bonded and later paid more than expected.
District leaders reviewed PERS (Public Employees Retirement System) cost pressures and possible responses, including bonding to reduce the unfunded liability. Denise Kelly, the business manager, walked the committee through past local actions and statewide debates about PERS assumptions and the risks of bonding.
Kelly described how the district evaluated past bonds and noted trade‑offs: a bond can reduce unfunded liability now but can cost more if payroll grows or market returns are lower than expected. "The idea is that you go out for a bond, and you pay a lump sum of money to PERS now to help pay down your unfunded liability," she said. Committee members noted some districts that bonded earlier have ended up paying more overall in certain market conditions, so the district is watching options and maintaining a PERS reserve.
