HOUSE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SYSTEM
May 15, 2003 Hearing Room E
3:00 PM Tapes 65 - 66
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. Mary Nolan
Rep. Dennis Richardson
Rep. Wayne Scott
STAFF PRESENT: Cara
Filsinger, Administrator
Annetta Mullins, Committee Assistant
MEASURE/ISSUES HEARD: HB 2409 – Public Hearing and Work Session
HB 2002 – Work Session
HB 3169 – Work Session
SB 325 A – Work Session
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 65, A |
||
|
003 |
Chair Knopp |
Calls meeting to order at 3:16 p.m. and opens a
public hearing on HB 2409. |
|
HB 2409
– PUBLIC HEARING |
||
|
006 |
Steve Manton |
Representing the City of Portland and Local
Governments who prevailed in the litigation before Judge Lipscomb. Testifies in support of the HB 2409-2
amendments (EXHIBIT A). States they feel it is necessary to
expedite the litigation to the Supreme Court. |
|
019 |
Jim Nass |
Legal Counsel for the Appellate Courts. States they support the HB 2409-2
amendments (EXHIBIT A). States that they had concerns with
the way HB 2409 was originally written on the certification process but the
HB 2409-2 amendments resolve the concerns that the Court of Appeals had. |
|
|
Chair Knopp |
Enters into record a letter from Bill Gary, Harrang
Long Gary Rudnick, in support of the HB 2409-2 amendments (EXHIBIT B). |
|
031 |
Chair Knopp |
Closes the public hearing and opens a work session
on HB 2409. |
|
HB 2409
– WORK SESSION |
||
|
034 |
Rep. Brown
|
MOTION: Moves to ADOPT HB 2409-2 amendments dated
2/20/03. |
|
|
|
VOTE:
8-0-1 EXCUSED: 1 - Rep. Butler |
|
038 |
Rep.
Macpherson |
Comments
that the HB 2409-2 amendments are dated February and knows there has been
further discussion of how this expedite provision interacts with the expedite
provisions in the other bills. Asks
if all conflicts have been resolved. |
|
|
Chair Knopp |
Responds there will be resolution in a House bill
that is currently in the Senate and if that doesn’t occur, the House can put
it in a Senate bill and send it back to the Senate. |
|
|
Chair Knopp |
Hearing no objection, declares the
motion CARRIED. |
|
048 |
Rep. Brown
|
MOTION: Moves HB 2409 to the floor with a DO PASS
AS AMENDED recommendation. |
|
052 |
|
VOTE:
8-0-1 AYE: In a roll call vote, all members present vote Aye. EXCUSED: 1 - Rep. Butler |
|
|
Chair Knopp |
The motion CARRIES. REP. KNOPP will lead discussion on the
floor. |
|
057 |
Chair Knopp |
Closes the work session on HB 2409 and opens a work
session on HB 2002 for the purpose of sending the bill to the Committee on
Rules and Public Affairs. |
|
HB 2002
– WORK SESSION |
||
|
066 |
Rep. Brown
|
MOTION: Moves HB 2002 to the floor WITHOUT
RECOMMENDATION as to passage and BE REFERRED to the Committee on Rules and
Public Affairs. |
|
072 |
|
VOTE:
7-1-1 AYE: 7 - Barker, Brown, Macpherson, Nolan, Richardson,
Scott, Knopp NAY: 1 - Kafoury EXCUSED: 1 - Butler |
|
|
Chair Knopp |
The motion CARRIES. |
|
078 |
Chair Knopp |
Closes the work session on HB 2002 and opens a work
session on HB 3169 for the purpose of referring the bill to the Committee on
Rules and Public Affairs. |
|
HB 3169
– WORK SESSION |
||
|
081 |
Rep. Brown
|
MOTION: Moves HB 3169 to the floor WITHOUT
RECOMMENDATION as to passage and BE REFERRED to the committee on Rules and
Public Affairs then to the Committee on Ways and Means by prior reference. |
|
|
|
VOTE:
7-1-1 AYE: 7 - Barker,
Brown, Macpherson, Nolan, Richardson, Scott, Knopp NAY: 1 - Kafoury EXCUSED: 1 - Butler |
|
|
Chair Knopp |
The motion CARRIES. |
|
100 |
Chair Knopp |
Closes the work session on HB 3169 and opens a work
session on SB 325 A |
|
SB 325
A – WORK SESSION |
||
|
104 |
Rep. Richardson |
Explains the proposed SB 325 A9 amendments (EXHIBIT C). |
|
158 |
Rep. Nolan |
Asks what percentage of the state would benefit from
this bill. |
|
|
Chair Knopp |
Responds that it s about thirty-five percent of
Oregonians. |
|
182 |
Rep. Nolan |
Asks why if this is good policy for small counties,
it is not good policy for everybody. |
|
|
Rep. Richardson |
Explains employment situation and lack of people to
fill those jobs in certain areas of the state. |
|
208 |
Rep. Nolan |
Ask if this bill were enacted and fully utilized,
whether it would shift some of the cost of the retirement system away from
the local employers who take advantage of it and onto those who are not able
to take advantage of it. |
|
|
Rep. Richardson |
Comments on problems in the current system where a
retiree goes back to work in the public sector, the employer does not make
PERS contributions for that slot. The
more widely that is done, less goes into the system. Does not know the exact number but PERS
contributions will be made for new hires. |
|
|
Rep. Nolan |
Comments that she takes Rep. Richardson’s answer as
a yes, it shifts costs from employers who would be able to use this onto
employers who can’t use it. |
|
239 |
Rep. Richardson |
Responds that Rep. Nolan is correct. Adds that by limiting this to counties,
these are counties under the present law who have already excluded teachers
and educators. It basically expands
it to those public sector workers who are not involved in education. |
|
|
Rep. Barker |
Asks if he could work for one of these employers
because he retired from a different system while a person who retired the
same day from Clackamas County could not. |
|
|
Richardson |
States this only applies to those who were in the
PERS system. |
|
302 |
Rep. Butler |
Comments that under the current system when a school
administrator comes to a small county, there is a covered and uncovered
rate. There is actually a greater rate
applied to the covered compensation and it does not shift to the other
employers in the system. Asks if this
bill changes that. |
|
|
Rep. Richardson |
Responds that he believes this bill does not change
that. |
|
326 |
Rep. Butler |
Comments that some small school districts are using
temporary administrators moving in from other locations who want to work
until they are 60 or 65. They are bringing
very valuable knowledge and skills to those schools in counties of under
35,000 population. Asks if this bill
would interrupt that after 24 months. |
|
336 |
Rep. Richardson |
Responds that it would not. |
|
|
Chair Knopp |
Comments that this bill would probably apply to
about 750,000 Oregonians, roughly 21 percent of the population. |
|
346 |
Rep. Butler |
Comments that it affects that 21 percent that live
in the small counties, counties under 76,000 people, but they will end up
paying the rate that subsidizes back for all covered employees under the
rules of the present program. |
|
356 |
Steve Delaney |
Oregon Public Employees’ Retirement System. Comments that school districts are
pooled. States that Rep. Butler’s
scenario would apply to an un-pooled government employer. When there is a pool, the pool will cover
the cost. Whether it will cause a
shifting of cost is the question and PERS has posed that question to Milliman
USA, asking what number of retirements would have to occur and how many
retirees would have to return for it to cause an actual shifting to appear in
the rate. States they do not have
that information but they are assuming there would need to be several
thousand re-employed retirees. |
|
|
Rep. Butler |
Asks if PERS know how many have taken advantage of
the program. |
|
|
Delaney |
Responds that the employer does not contact
PERS. There would be no reason for
them to tell PERS. |
|
430 |
Rep. Nolan |
Comments that she had understood that any employer
who has participated in PERS in the creation of the unfunded liability, even
when they no longer have employees, are still on the hook to help retire the
unfunded liability. Asks if it is
different in this circumstance. |
|
452 |
Delaney |
Responds it is different in the sense that the
employer is still active; they simply don’t have covered salary. The anticipation is that at some point
they will have covered salary to again begin paying into their
liability. Adds that PERS is studying
the small entities that are pooled and whether that could shift the cost due
to having no covered salary for a given period of time, and what method would
be used to charge them for the liability that was incurred. Statute addresses salary as one
methodology for determining the payments of an employer to cover their
liability, but that is not the sole means to determine the liability of an
employer. States they are working on
it and will probably address it by administrative rule. |
|
TAPE 66, A |
||
|
020 |
Chair Knopp |
Asks when the study will be completed. |
|
|
Delaney |
Responds it is being done by Milliman USA and could
take several weeks. |
|
028 |
Rep. Macpherson |
Comments he wants to make sure he understands the
cost aspects of reemployment of retirees.
Gives example of a person who is eligible for retirement but who
continues to work instead of retiring and one who retires and continues to
work, perhaps in the same job. Notes
there is an additional cost system-wide when someone is able to retire and
get retirement and salary by continuing to work. |
|
050 |
Delaney |
Explains that when a local government is not pooled,
they have a set liability based on the covered. When an employee retirees the additional growing liabilities
are stopped; the cost of the retirement is assigned to the employer. The covered salary has shrunk. The liability has not changed, but the
covered salary has shrunk, therefore, their incremental contribution rate may
go up slightly. It is not a rise in
cost; the total owed to the fund has not changed but the basis upon which
they are going to pay the obligation because they have one less person with a
covered salary. There can be an
adjustment upward for the unpooled employers. In a pool, the pool as a whole is covering this liability. |
|
070 |
Rep. Macpherson |
Asks what the impact is system-wide when comparing
an employee who continues to work and one who retires and continues to work. |
|
|
Delaney |
Responds that Milliman is looking to a 30-year
career period. States his
understanding is if the person has worked to the point of an unreduced
benefit, whether the person works additional years or retires would not incur
an additional cost. |
|
093 |
Rep. Macpherson |
Comments he believes there is an extra cost to the
system when someone retires and continues to work. If the smaller subdistricts are allowed to use the technique of
having people retire and getting hired back and draw their pension sooner, it
is an additional costs to the average rate that is spread across the school
districts, yet only the smaller rural districts can avail themselves of
it. |
|
119 |
Rep. Richardson |
Comments that this would not change the law for
teachers in small counties. This bill
just expands it to the very small percentage of other public service
employees in small counties. |
|
127 |
Rep. Macpherson |
Comments that the proposal goes both direction. It is liberal for a time and then more
restrictive thereafter. |
|
146 |
Chair Knopp |
Closes the work session on SB 325 A and adjourns
meeting at 3:53 p.m. |
EXHIBIT
SUMMARY
A
– HB 2409, HB 2409-2 amendments, Steve Manton, 1 p
B
– HB 2409, letter, William Gary, 2 pp
C
– SB 325, SB 325-A9 amendments and explanation, Rep. Richardson, 5 pp