Showing posts with label PSERS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label PSERS. Show all posts

Friday, November 19, 2010

More PSERS Hope and Hype

You may have heard recently that the Pennsylvania Senate passed HB2497. The PSBA recommended passage of the bill due to it reamortizing the liabilities of the PSERS system.

I linked to a great post on this bill back in June.

However, what you may have missed was why some of the opponents suggested voting against this bill.

Here is a snippet from The Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry's John Callahan, Director of Government Relations:
Legislation to re-amortize both the Pennsylvania State Employee Retirement System’s (PSERS) and State Employee Retirement System’s (SERS) unfunded liability, allow for the smoothing of assets from 5 years to 10 years (PSERS only) and institute arbitrary collars on contribution rates was approved by the House Appropriations Committee on June 7, 2010. The PA Chamber believes this “reform” legislation would continue to defer already unaffordable costs and further underfund these plans leading to increased unfunded liabilities. According to a the Public Employee Retirement Commission (PERC) analysis this type of deferral will result in a $40 billion cost for PSERS and a $12 billion cost for SERS in order to ramp up the employer contributions over 10 years rather than over 3 years. This $52 billion burden on future generations and would do nothing to provide cost control, affordability or predictability to PSERS or SERS. Of significant note, these funding estimates are based upon the attainment of an 8% annual investment assumption.
The document with the above quote is worth a read. It makes some realistic, pragmatic suggestions for an actual fix to the current system. This house bill allows our government to continue to underfund liabilities therefore blowing a bigger bubble down the road that will be even more difficult to tackle. The frustrating thing is that in the near term, this will feel like somewhat of a fix to local taxpayers as the contribution rates to employers in the near term will be less than they need to be to fully fund the pension. This is "accomplished" at a significant cost, however. It's akin to putting a bandaid over a bullet hole.

Thanks for reading.

James

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Terrific Post on the PSERS Crisis

A school board member in Northwestern Lehigh School District runs his own blog, Pride and Promise. I was going to do a lengthy post on the House Bill that is set to address the PSERS issue but this blog beat me to it. I don't think I could have done a better job explaining this myself.

Please check out Paul Fischer's post on the PSERS crisis here:

http://prideandpromise.com/2010/06/11/the-psers-crisis-kicking-the-can-further-down-the-road-with-hb-2497/

The idea here is that the HB actually kicks the can down the road again. It has the short term effect of slightly lowering employer contributions but in the long term it will cost taxpayers billions ($52 billion according to some)more than simply sticking with the bad plan we already have.

Thanks for reading.

James

Monday, March 29, 2010

Pennsylvania State Employee Retirement System Riskiest in the Country

This headline was a story reported on NPR on March 23rd.

Is this what happens when your pension gets underfunded? How does a pension fund try to game returns back into its favor? There are two answers: First, you can increase risk. Second, you can increase leverage.

PSERS is banking on better than 8% returns going forward to meet its obligations. With just 13% of its funds in bonds and cash, this is a portfolio allocation better suited for a 20-something whippersnapper, not a system that is expected to pay out billions of dollars of pension payments for generations! When your investment returns (or lack thereof) are guaranteed by taxpayers, why not leverage everything? Essentially, the system is one which encourages risky behavior because the pension obligations are backed by the Commonwealth (that's me an you).

To see how we got here, please take a look at this article from Mainline Media News. It presents a good history of the situation and also walks through the PSBA and Rendell proposals about how to "fix" the problem. This article points out that there is no easy solution.

See this post from 2008 on how PSERS had changed its investment philosophy to favor more private investment placements (hedge funds and real estate development).

The Day of Reckoning (see the article in that link) for the Pennsylvania plan is 2023. This is when the pension payments are scheduled to run out. From the article:
If we are going to keep providing generous pensions to state workers, taxes will have to rise dramatically in the near future to pay for them. Alternatively, public employee benefits could be limited to the extent possible under the law, and other spending could be cut. The most equitable solution is probably one in which both taxpayers and public employees share in the pain to some extent. One thing is for certain: to continue ignoring the problem until states run bankrupt is not in anyone’s interest.
This is why I asked the Board to pass a resolution urging the PA House and Senate to get pension reform on the front burner now.

Thanks for reading.

James

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

PSBA Analysis of Governor Rendell Education Budget

I received an email today from PSBA's Office of Governmental and Member Relation in regards to the Governor Rendell's budget announcement yesterday. The information below is available on the PSBA website. Full text of the announcement is below:

Rendell presents $29 billion state budget for 2010-11
This week Gov. Edward Rendell presented his $29 billion 2010-11state budget plan to the General Assembly that contains a 6.42% increase in the basic education subsidy and holds most other education programs at level funding or decreased amounts. The governor also proposed a plan to address the expected spike in employer contributions to the pension system, and to create a new reserve fund to be used when the federal stimulus money has ended. In addition, Rendell once again pitched his proposal for a system of statewide healthcare for school employees.
Under the governor's proposal, the Basic Education Subsidy would receive $5.8 billion, an increase of $354.8 million, or 6.42%, over 2009-10. In doing so, Rendell called for the third-year investment in his school funding formula that was developed in response to the state Costing-out Study. The funding formula establishes an adequacy target for each school district and compares the target to each district's actual spending in order to determine the district's adequacy gap. The formula calculates the state share needed to help close that gap in each district.
Most, but not all, other programs under the education portion of the budget plan are level-funded or have a decrease in funding. Here are some of the programs, their proposed funding amounts and how that compares to the current budget:
  • Special Education: $1 billion (level)
  • School Employees Retirement: $399.7 million (19.51% increase)
  • Accountability Block Grants: $271.4 million (level)
  • Reimbursement of Charter Schools: $226.9 million (level)
  • Early Intervention: $186.1 million (7.23% increase)
  • Pre-K Counts: $85.9 million (.55% decrease)
  • Career and Technical Education: $62 million (level)
  • Educational Assistance Program: $55.3 million (6.43% decrease)
  • PA Assessment: $37.6 million (1% decrease)
  • School Improvement Grants: $11.3 million (1% decrease)
  • Science: It's Elementary: $13.5 million (1% decrease)
  • Dual Enrollment Programs: $8 million (level)
  • High School Reform: $3.6 million (1% decrease)
The governor acknowledged the impending crisis in the employer contribution rates for the state and school employees pensions systems (SERS and PSERS) that will occur in 2012-13. For PSERS, the state contribution is projected to increase from $758 million in 2011-12 to $1.88 billion in 2012-13. that represents a single-year increase of $1.13 billion. School district contribution costs will spike from $658 million to $1.86 billion.
Rendell has offered a plan that contains two components. The first is "fresh start" that would reamortize liabilities over 30 years. In conjunction with that effort, the state would require an incremental phase-in to higher contributions. Under the plan, in 2010-11, the commonwealth and school district employers would begin to fund the step-up in pension costs by increasing employer contribution rates to PSERS by 1% of payroll. According to the governor's office, this represents an additional employer investment of $200 million, or 24%, over 2009-10 levels. Thereafter, contribution amounts would be scheduled to increase annually by a maximum of 3% of payroll. Any increase of benefits, such as cost-of-living adjustments, would add to the unfunded liability and therefore require additional employer contributions.
The governor noted that no new revenue is required to balance the 2010-11 budget. However, he cautioned that in fiscal year 2012, federal funding totaling more than $2.3 billion will disappear. To address future budgetary challenges, Rendell proposed the creation of a new Stimulus Transition Reserve Fund. All new revenues generated during 2010-11 would be deposited into the new fund to help balance the 2011-12 budget.
To do so, Rendell is calling for a reduction in the Sales and Use Tax rate from 6% to 4%, and the elimination of 74 exemptions for items that currently are not subject to sales tax. The 1% vendor sales tax discount would be eliminated, and tobacco taxes would be extended to include cigars and smokeless tobacco. In addition, the state would institute a new severance tax on natural gas extraction.
The important thing to note here is that the Governor has outlined his plan to address the PSERs funding crisis. He proposes to increase the employer contribution by 1% of payroll in 2010-2011 with increases of up to 3% of payroll thereafter until the pension is fully funded. This stepped approach to funding PSERS would have the effect of pushing out the year that PSERS is fully funded.

This is the accounting magic I wrote about on Tuesday morning. The above approach is not currently allowed but if it is adopted by the Legislature then you can bet it will become legal.

Thanks for reading.

James

Sunday, December 13, 2009

PSERS Rate Spike Set for 2010-2011

Hopefully the recently announced PSERS rates spike does not catch anyone by surprise. It's been a topic talked about on this blog many times and has been statewide news for the past two years.

Next year we can expect our PSERS contribution to increase by over 70%. However, that is not even the bad news. Please see the excerpt from this article below:
State and local education officials said the worst part is that next year's increase is just a fraction of an anticipated leap to record public contributions by 2012, when the state and local tab is projected to exceed $4 billion.

Tomorrow we are set to hear updated cost figures from our architects for the high school project. When deciding how much we have to spend on this project we must consider what the rate increases in PSERS will do to our overall budget.

I have said a number of times on this blog that we have not yet had to make tough decisions. I believe the tough decisions start now.

Thanks for reading.

James

Tuesday, May 5, 2009

PSERS Story from Tribune-Review

The Tribune-Review had a nice article on the PSERS issues that will be hitting school districts and residents across the state.

The article is below and can be found here.

Teacher pension 'tsunami' expected across Pennsylvania

Tools
Print this article
E-mail this article
Subscribe to this paper
Larger textLarger text | Smaller text

Subscribe

By Rick Wills
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Sunday, May 3, 2009

Buzz up!
StumbleUpon Toolbar


This year, the Pine-Richland School district is contributing $900,000 to state's teacher pension fund.

Three years from now -- and for many years thereafter -- the district expects to pay roughly $7 million annually into the Pennsylvania Public School Employees' Retirement System, known as PSERS.

The dilemma facing Pine-Richland faces each of the state's 501 school districts. A bubble in the number of teachers expected to retire in the next decade and a 30 percent drop in the total value of the fund's assets last year in the souring economy means districts contribute more to the teachers' retirement fund.

School officials in turn are predicting almost certain property tax hikes at a time when many Pennsylvanians have watched the recession slash their 401(k) accounts in half or force their companies to end pension plans entirely.

"This is a financial tsunami, and doing something now does not mean significant relief for years or decades. It's one ugly scenario," said Jay Himes, executive director of the Pennsylvania Association of School Business Officials.

Teacher retirement benefits are mandated by law. Courts have ruled they cannot be reduced for current teachers or state employees covered under similar retirement plans.

"I'm worried about this, even now," said Stephen Hawbaker, president of the Pine-Richland school board.

Starting in the 2012-13 school year, when retirements are expected to accelerate, school districts and the state will have to pay an additional $2.5 billion annually into the fund, according to the Association of School Business Officials.

The fund collects from 273,000 active members and pays pensions to 174,000 retirees. It was valued at $67.2 billion in 2007. That dropped to $45.4 billion at the end of December.

Jude Abraham, business manager at the Hempfield Area School District, Westmoreland County's largest, anticipates that by 2012, the district will be paying $5 million more than the $2.5 million it pays now. The district's budget is about $80 million.

"Many districts are using reserve funds to try to plan for this. But taxes will have to go up to compensate for this," he said.

The state Legislature sets the contribution rates from teachers and school districts. School employees, including teachers, pay between 6 percent and 7.5 percent of their salaries into the pension fund. The state and school districts pay a combined 4.76 percent of a teacher's salary into the fund.

In the Hampton School District, payments this year are $510,000 -- an expense business manager Jeff Kline estimates will be $2 million by 2012.

"It's hard enough to balance a budget, and we have no control over this spending. The contributions are set by the state," Kline said.

While poor financial market conditions are the immediate cause of the problem, Timothy Potts of Democracy Rising, a nonpartisan citizens group, lays blame with lawmakers.

"The Legislature always prefers to have someone else raise taxes, which school boards will now be forced to do," said Potts, who is a member of the Carlisle Area school board in Cumberland County.

Pittsburgh Public Schools, the largest district in the county, has 2,700 teachers and full-time professionals. Chris Berdnik, chief financial officer and chief operations officer, estimates that contributions to the pension fund will rise from $10.08 million this year to $33.18 million in the 2012 school year.

"The PSERS funding crisis as one of the most significant challenges we face in the next decade," he said.

"The PSERS funding crisis as one of the most significant challenges we face in the next decade," he said.

In 2001, lawmakers increased their pension benefits by 50 percent and, at the same time, boosted teachers' and state workers pensions by 25 percent.

But the Legislature didn't require a corresponding increase in contributions from school districts, says Wythe Keever, a spokesman for the Pennsylvania State Education Association, the state's largest teachers' union.

"The districts, in the latter part of '90s and in the early part of this decade basically took a pension holiday. They did not pay enough to sustain the system during the down years," Keever said.

In 2002, for instance, contributions from school districts in the state were $539,000, Keever said. The same year, the state contributed $662 million.

Contributions generally have been based on the assumption that the stock market will go up 8 percent on average each year. During much of the 1990s and the early part of this decade, the fund generated double-digit returns.

"Earnings were very high until about a year ago," said Rep. David Levdansky, an Elizabeth Democrat who chairs the House Finance Committee.

Levdansky favors setting minimum contributions from teachers, districts and the state that would be required even if the stock market does well.

"I wish we had done that. We would not be in this kind of trouble if we had," he said.

Rep. Paul Clymer, a Bucks County Republican and ranking member of the House Education Committee, said legislators are looking at whether federal stimulus money can be contributed to the pension plan. Clymer has introduced a bill that would push state and school contributions to 7 percent immediately.

"That at least would be somewhat of a cushion for the future," he said.

But school districts remain in a tight spot.

"The market has changed and has caught up with the rest of the world, but raising taxes is really the last thing we want to do," said Jon Rupert, business manger of the Highlands School District In Natrona Heights.

Rick Wills can be reached at rwills@tribweb.com or 412-320-7944.
Back to headlines


With the recent uptick in the markets, the situation has improved somewhat. It is just hard to say by how much.

Thanks for reading.

James

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Pension Liabilities in the News Again

You may have heard the story about a year ago regarding the City of Vallejo, California filing for bankruptcy protection due to ever increasing contractual obligations including employee contracts and pension costs. A judge recently held that this bankruptcy allowed the City to void its existing union contracts. Today, I woke up to find a story about Pacific Grove, California and its long walk down the same plank. As the article starts out, "Bankruptcy, its not just for banks and auto manufacturers anymore".

Local Government Agencies across California are going to be coming to the same realization that Pacific Grove and Vallejo did. The article goes on to say the following:
The city has been struggling with how to bring its pension costs to CalPERS under control in light of the economic recession. The state pension program relies on investment income to fund benefits and, when these funds fall short, cities and other public agencies enrolled in CalPERS must take up the slack.
That excerpt is why I bring this topic up here. School Districts across this state are looking out to 2012 when PSERS has its contribution rate spike. PSERS is very much the same as CalPERS (and most other pension plans for that matter). It relies heavily on investment earnings and income for payouts to retirees. I have heard directors across the state say that this increase will cripple their budget for years to come. A school district cannot have a 250% increase in an already large expense and not expect it to have serious consequences on the way it either a) educate the children or b) tax the community.

It is important for people all across Pennsylvania to contact their state representatives (Senator John Pippy and Representive Matt Smith) to tell them that they need to do everything they can to help school districts avoid the same fate as Vallejo and Pacific Grove.

Our District is poised to start planning for this pension spike this year. There are some options on the table. We are looking at a possible $1 million surplus from the 2008-2009 school year. We have the opportunity to set that money aside to even out the rise in taxes to pay for the 2012 pension increase. Instead of there being a 3 mill increase in 2012, there might be a 1.5 mill increase instead. Then the following year you would see the other 1.5 mill increase (or some other "stepped" schedule depending on what this Board does). Setting aside $1 million for this will not reduce the ultimate expense, it simply delays when it fully hits the taxpayers. The math is pretty simple. $1 million equals .5 mills. So setting aside this money will save the taxpayers in one year $100 on a $200,000 house.

I recommended to the Board that we use that money to fund projects that we know are going to happen in order to reduce millage for the next 25 years instead of manufacturing a stepped increase in taxes. We know we will be spending millions of dollars on a high school project on which we will be paying maybe 5% interest. Taking $1 million today and investing the money in the down payment on that project would reduce the eventual loan amount by $1 million and therefore reduce the millage rate in this district for the next 25 years. Over the life of a 25 year loan, this investment would save taxpayers over $1.86 million. After a 15% state reimbursement, that investment would save the district approximately $75,000/yr. While this is not a whole lot of money, its important to note that if the District keeps making fiscally responsible decisions like this then over the years the numbers start to add up.

I have made my point to the Board but will most likely be outvoted. I just wish we could stop looking at the near term results as opposed to the long-term effects of our decisions. The millage will be higher in 2014 under scenario 1 than it would be under the second scenario. That is a fact and is undisputed. The issue is whether or not the Board wants to implement a stepped increase for the pension liability rather than have a huge increase in taxes to pay for the rate spike. Nothing we do can reduce our eventual expense to PSERS. Without a change from our state government, we can only delay the inevitable expense.

Thanks for reading.

James






Thursday, December 18, 2008

PSERS Contribution Rates set to increase 244% by 2013

PSERS has released its employer contribution rate that will be effective July 1, 2009. That rate will be 4.78 percent, a slight increase from this year's rate of 4.76 percent.

From the press release:

PSERS Executive Director Jeffrey B. Clay also cautioned that, while the latest actuarial figures support only a small increase in the contribution rate, school employers should continue to prepare for the dramatic employer contribution rate increase forecast in four years.

Mr. Clay stated that “while PSERS cannot collect employer contributions in excess of what is actuarially required by funding methodologies, some school districts on their own have begun to create a reserve in anticipation of the large rate increase projected in FY 2012/2013. Mr. Clay recognized the difficulty for school employers to create a reserve in the current economy, but stated “it would be very prudent for school employers to do so.”


Here is a chart of the expected contribution rates that was put out by PSERS. This chart outlines the projected rates of contribution all the way out to the year 2038. According to this chart, the employer contribution rate is scheduled to increase from 4.78 percent for 2009 to 16.40 percent beginning in 2013. That would be a 244% increase.

Last year the District spent roughly $2.8 million on these contributions, half of which were reimbursed by the state. In the District budget available online on page 68 you can see how much revenue Mt Lebanon received in reimbursement. Forecasting from today's numbers, a 244% increase would mean our contribution for the 2013 year would be close to $6.8 million of which about $3.4 would be reimbursed by the state.

Hopefully our state lawmakers will see this and make sure they do some leveling of the contribution rate before the huge increase.

Thanks for reading.

James