HOUSE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SYSTEM
March 27, 2003 Hearing Room E
3:00 PM Tapes 39 - 40
MEMBERS PRESENT: Rep. Tim Knopp, Chair
Rep. Alan Brown, Vice-Chair
Rep. Deborah Kafoury, Vice-Chair
Rep. Jeff Barker
Rep. Tom Butler
Rep. Greg Macpherson
Rep. Dennis Richardson
Rep. Wayne Scott
MEMBER EXCUSED: Rep. Mary Nolan
STAFF PRESENT: Cara
Filsinger, Administrator
Annetta Mullins, Committee Assistant
MEASURE/ISSUES HEARD: HB 2407 – Pubic Hearing and Work Session
HB 2003 – Public Hearing
HB 2008 – Public Hearing
HB 2020 – Public Hearing
HB 2773 – Public Hearing
These minutes are in
compliance with Senate and House Rules.
Only text enclosed in quotation marks reports a speaker’s exact
words. For complete contents,
please refer to the tapes.
|
TAPE/# |
Speaker |
Comments |
|
Tape 39, A |
||
|
003 |
Chair Knopp |
Calls meeting to order at 3:36 p.m. and opens a
public hearing on HB 2407. |
|
HB 2407
– PUBLIC HEARING |
||
|
|
Chair Knopp |
Neither seeing nor hearing any witness wishing to
testify on HB 2407, closes the public hearing, and opens a work session on HB
2407. |
|
HB 2407
– WORK SESSION |
||
|
008 |
Chair Knopp |
Explains the HB 2407-4 amendments (EXHIBIT A). |
|
|
Chair Knopp |
Comments on the Legislative Fiscal statement on
original bill (EXHIBIT B). |
|
|
|
The Legislative Fiscal Statement on the HB 2407-4
amendments is hereby made a part of these minutes (EXHIBIT C). |
|
030 |
Rep. Brown
|
MOTION: Moves to ADOPT HB 2407-4 amendments dated
03/27/03 (EXHIBIT A). |
|
032 |
|
VOTE:
7-0-2 EXCUSED: 2 - Reps. Kafoury, Nolan |
|
|
Chair Knopp |
Hearing no objection, declares the
motion CARRIED. |
|
038 |
Rep. Brown
|
MOTION: Moves HB 2407 to the floor with a DO PASS
AS AMENDED recommendation. |
|
030 |
Rep. Butler |
Asks what happens to those who serve in the
legislature a few years between other public service jobs if HB 2407 becomes
law—would they roll out their existing account into the private pension,
including an existing PERS account. |
|
|
Chair Knopp |
Responds it would be the individual’s option; they
could leave the account in PERS.
Notes that a person entering a term beginning July 1, 2004 would start
in the new system. |
|
|
Rep. Butler |
Comments he wants to make sure that people are not
discouraged from taking the opportunities from other service if they are
substantially vested, or those who may desire to serve for very short periods
of time in the legislature. |
|
057 |
Rep. Macpherson |
Comments that this is a good approach generally to
enhance the credibility of the process because the legislature will be
working on some difficult issues over the coming weeks. This makes it clear that the members of
the Assembly do not stand to gain in the process. Expresses appreciation for other members who have contributed
to this bill. |
|
069 |
Chair Knopp |
Comments there are two schools of thought. One is that legislators should not have a
pension at all. Thinks HB 2407
accomplishes what needs to be done, which is to remove any inherent conflict
of interest of the legislature overseeing and being part of a class,
especially at the police and fire rate.
Believes legislators should be in a new system, and HB 2407 will save
a fair amount of money. |
|
091 |
Rep. Butler |
Comments that he mentioned this bill to someone
outside of the legislative process and the person’s comment was, “why does
this make me envision rats jumping off a ship.” |
|
|
Chair Knopp |
States that he sees this removing a conflict of
interest. |
|
114 |
Rep. Richardson |
Comments that savings to state government for each
legislator would be over 20 percent, the amount that would go toward their
PERS retirement because of the unfunded actuarial liability; this plan sets
up a six percent contribution. |
|
124 |
Rep. Barker |
Comments he retired from a system different than the
PERS system and it was always an annoyance that the legislature was drawing a
higher rate which never made any sense. |
|
141 |
|
VOTE:
8-0-1 AYE: In a roll call vote, all members present vote Aye. EXCUSED: 1 - Rep. Nolan |
|
|
Chair Knopp |
The motion CARRIES. REP. KNOPP will lead discussion on the
floor. |
|
|
Chair Knopp |
Closes the work session on HB 2407 and opens a public
hearing on 2773. |
|
HB 2773
– PUBLIC HEARING |
||
|
157 |
Leslie Lewis |
Chair, Yamhill County Commissioner. Testifies in support of HB 2773 (EXHIBIT D). |
|
165 |
Rep. Macpherson |
Asks if HB 2773 would apply initially when someone is
elected. |
|
|
Lewis |
States that currently an elected official has the
option of becoming a member of PERS at the time the person is sworn in. States that Yamhill County would save
money by her not being in PERS, and others would like the option to remove
themselves from PERS also. |
|
200 |
Rep. Macpherson |
Asks if the election to not be in PERS is
irrevocable. |
|
|
Lewis |
Responds affirmatively. Comments on opting to not be in PERS during her freshman year
in the legislature. States that the
understanding at the county is that if an elected official opts out when they
are first sworn in, the person can never be in PERS. |
|
221 |
Steve Delaney |
PERS Legislative Liaison. Submits background material on PERS membership for elected and
appointed officials (EXHIBIT E). Explains that an election by a newly
elected person to not be in PERS is an affirmative election. Explains that upon re-election the person
would again be given the opportunity to decide whether to elect to begin PERS
or discontinue PERS. HB 2773 would
allow a person during the term of office to stop the election. Comments on buy-back provisions provided
to legislators. |
|
|
Rep. Macpherson |
Comments that he is hearing that for a person who
declines participation, it is not irrevocable decision because if they are
re-elected, even to the same office, they have the opportunity open
again. States that it is an
inconsistency that maybe does not have a lot of justification. |
|
262 |
Lewis |
Comments that she was advised by Legislative Counsel
that this is the way the bill had to be drafted. States that she is satisfied with the bill the way it is. |
|
|
Chair Knopp |
Comments that the committee will ask Legislative
Counsel to look at the issue of continuity. |
|
292 |
Rep. Butler |
Comments that the savings will not be realized
noticeably because the rate will go up on the remainder of the payroll. |
|
331 |
Chair Knopp |
Closes the public hearing on HB 2773 and opens a public
hearing on HB 2003. |
|
HB 2003
– PUBLIC HEARING |
||
|
|
Chair Knopp |
Notes letters received from Greg Hartman (EXHIBIT F) and Bill Gary (EXHIBIT G) and advises members that
Gary has requested time to talk to the committee next Tuesday. |
|
353 |
Mary Botkin |
Oregon AFSCME.
Testifies in opposition to HB 2003 (EXHIBIT H). |
|
TAPE 40, A |
||
|
001 |
Botkin |
Continues presentation. |
|
042 |
Botkin |
Continues presentation (EXHIBIT H, page 2). |
|
119 |
Botkin |
Comments on private sector comparisons with PERS. |
|
180 |
Rep. Richardson |
Comments that he has never heard anyone speak so
eloquently in favor of the bill relating to double-dipping. |
|
195 |
Rep. Barker |
Comments if a contract supercedes in a disagreement. |
|
219 |
Rep. Knopp |
Comments that the committee will have testimony that
says the pension plan is not secure; it is 66 percent funded and the employer
rates will average 22.8 percent for the pickup and the system has an unfunded
liability of $16.41 billion currently.
Believes if the legislature does not give the court some opportunity
to say this is accurate, right and constitutional or it is not, we will end
up in some sort of bankruptcy situation and does not believe the taxpayers
will bail the legislature out.
Believes that if this problem is not solved first, or the legislature
has at least tried to solve the problem by presenting the court with
opportunities, many things will go badly and it will be a downward
spiral. |
|
|
Chair Knopp |
Comments on efforts of everyone to seek ideas for a
resolution to the problem. States he
is concerned about those employees who are not making huge dollars, and is
also concerned when he sees a PERS statement that says a teacher who makes
$48,000 a year can retire in six years at age 58 making over $8,000 a
month. States that money is not in
the reserves where it should have been; it is in the employee accounts. HB 2003 presents some ideas. Believes this committee will have to
institute a successor system and present the court with some options as it
relates to righting the system for Tier I and II employees. |
|
301 |
Botkin |
Comments on working relationships and efforts to
resolve the issues. |
|
348 |
Chair Knopp |
Comments on timelines for the committee to act in
order to meet the budget deadlines. |
|
|
Chair Knopp |
Closes the public hearing on HB 2003 and opens
public hearings on HB 2008 and HB 2020. |
|
HB 2008
AND HB 2020 – PUBLIC HEARING |
||
|
375 |
Jim Voytko |
Presents update on status of PERS system (EXHIBIT I). |
|
TAPE 39, B |
||
|
011 |
Voytko |
Continues presentation. |
|
|
Chair Knopp |
Asks if the level of funding has ever been lower. |
|
|
Voytko |
Responds that one level was lower but it was not a
good comparison. |
|
|
Voytko |
Continues presentation (EXHIBIT I). |
|
086 |
Rep. Richardson |
Asks if the billing notices that were sent to the
school districts February 1, 2003 included the 22.8 percent rate. |
|
|
Voytko |
Explains the rate setting process by the PERS Board. |
|
106 |
Rep. Richardson |
Asks if the projected numbers would be affected if
employers reduce the number of employees by 10 percent. |
|
|
Voytko |
Responds it would to some extent. States that in previous testimony they
presented information where they had broken down the rates in various
components: disability, normal costs of retirement, and the unfunded
actuarial liability, which is insensitive to the number of employees. States that that portion of the bill would
be set on a smaller number of people and the effective rate would go up. There are two parts to the rate. One part is relatively insensitive to the
number of people. One part is very
sensitive and must fall over onto the smaller contributing population. |
|
|
Rep. Richardson |
Comments that that a 10 percent fewer population of
employees would still have the same PERS liability so as a percentage the
rate would go up. |
|
|
Voytko |
Responds that Rep. Richardson is correct. |
|
153 |
Rep. Richardson |
Comments that the assumption was based on an eight
percent investment rate of return since February 1. Asks what the effect of zero percent earnings would be. |
|
|
Voytko |
Responds that the effect on the health of the plan
would be very bad because the liabilities grow by about eight percent per
year. If the assets stay flat, that
means an additional gap that needs to be added to the unfunded actuarial
liability. States that within a few
weeks, they will have the ability to run a model to answer the “what if”
questions. |
|
|
Rep. Richardson |
Asks what might be the PERS cost to employers this
year, when will the new rates take effect, and what would be the effect on
the school districts or municipalities in the next year if there is a flat
rate of return. |
|
|
Voytko |
Responds that the July rates the :PERS Board has
passed and are scheduled to go into effect would be unaffected by a flat
return in 2003. However, the rates
that would be promulgated to fund the plan back to health in July 2005 would
be larger than the ones presented today—perhaps in the range of 24 percent. If the earnings are zero this year, the
rates in July 2005 will be higher, probably noticeably higher. |
|
201 |
Rep. Macpherson |
Asks what impact there would be on the contribution
rates if there were a reduction of 10 percent reduction of the active
workforce. |
|
|
Voytko |
Responds he thinks it is a calculable number and
would be glad to respond in writing. |
|
|
Rep. Macpherson |
Comments he thinks the legislature should have an
analysis of the service level and what that means for staffing levels and the
implications of that for employer contribution rates. |
|
251 |
Voytko |
Explains that the rates would not go up until July
2005. States they do not react to
layoff notices in terms of revising a rate; the rates are in effect for the
full two years. |
|
266 |
Rep. Macpherson |
Comments on the smoothing rules and states we know
higher contributions rates are coming but we aren’t charging for them
yet. Suggests that the impacts not be
deferred. |
|
|
Voytko |
Responds that he testified to the PERS Board that
this deferral, while it has its positive aspects, also has its costs. One of the reasons the unfunded actuarial
liability creeps up is that smoothing causes the Board to set rates slightly
lower than they really need to be currently. |
|
309 |
Chair Knopp |
Closes the public hearings on HB 2008 and HB 2020
and announces agendas for next week. |
|
328 |
Chair Knopp |
Adjourns meeting at 4:55 p.m. |
EXHIBIT
SUMMARY
A
– HB 2407, HB 2407-4 amendments, Rep. Knopp, 1 p
B
– HB 2407, Legislative Fiscal Statement, staff, 1 p
C
– HB 2407, Legislative Fiscal Statement on HB 2407-4 amendments, 2 pp
D
– HB 2773, prepared statement, Leslie Lewis, 1 p
E
– HB 2773, background information, Steve Delaney, 3 pp
F
– HB 2003, review of HB 2003, Greg Hartman, 4 pp
G
– HB 2003, letter in response to Legislative Counsel Opinion, Bill Gary, 41 pp
H
– HB 2003, prepared statement, Mary Botkin, 2 pp
I
– HB 2008 and HB 2020, prepared statement, Jim Voytko, 3 pp