Vote button trans.png
April's Project of the Month
It's spring time. It's primary election season!
Click here to find all the information you'll need to cast your ballot.




Public pensions in Arizona

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Arizona public pensions
Flag of Arizona.png
Pension System
Number of pension systems 4
State pension systems: State Retirement System
Public Safety Personnel Retirement System
Correctional Officers Retirement System
Elected Officials' Retirement Plan
System type: Defined benefit plan
Pension Health (2012)[1]
Fund Value: $36,868,930,410
Estimated liabilities: $51,243,743,310
Unfunded liabilities : $14,374,812,900
Percent funded: 71.9%
Percent funded change: Decrease.svg1.3%[2]
Percent funded rank: 21[3]
Pension Fund Members (2012)
Total Members: 585,566
Active Members: 238,372
Other Members: 347,194
Other State Pension Information
AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyoming
Arizona public pensions are the state mechanism by which state and many local government employees in Arizona receive retirement benefits. Benefits for most state employees are administered by the Arizona State Retirement System (ASRS). The state also administers three separate funds for specific categories of employees: the Public Safety Personnel Retirement System (PSPRS), Corrections Officer Retirement Plan (CORP) and Elected Officials Retirement Plan (EORP). Political subdivisions may also participate in these systems. All 15 counties and most cities and towns participate in ASRS. Phoenix and Tucson maintain their own locally-administered pension systems.[4]

A 2012 report from the Pew Center on the States noted that Arizona's pension system was funded at 75 percent at the close of fiscal year 2010, below the 80 percent funding level experts recommend. Consequently, Pew designated the state's pension system as cause for "serious concern."[5]

Taken together, the funded ratio for the state's pension systems decreased from 80.1 percent in fiscal year 2007 to 71.9 percent in fiscal year 2012, an 8.2 percent drop. Likewise, unfunded liabilities increased from approximately $7.8 billion in fiscal year 2007 to more than $14 billion in fiscal year 2012.

Features

Pension plans

In fiscal year 2012, according to the systems' Actuarial Valuation Reports, Arizona had a total of 238,372 active members in its retirement plans. Our membership figures divide plan participants into two broad categories: active and other. Active members are current employees contributing to the pension system. Other members include retirees, beneficiaries and other inactive plan participants (usually terminated employees entitled to benefits but not yet receiving them).[6]

The following information was collected from the state's 2012 Actuarial Valuation Reports, which measured fund status as of June 30, 2012. Valuation reports are annual reports produced by outside consultants, using unaudited data provided by the pension systems themselves, in order to determine what employers in the system should contribute in the coming year to maintain or improve the fiscal health of the pension funds.

For PSPRS, CORP and EORP, Actuarial Valuation Reports for 2012 were produced by Gabriel Roeder Smith and Company, a national actuarial and benefits consulting services firm that focuses on services for the public sector.[7] For ASRS, the 2012 Actuarial Valuation Report was produced by Buck Consultants, a global human resources consulting firm.[8]

The "percentage funded" is calculated by taking the current value of the fund and dividing by the estimated amount of total liabilities. The assumed rates of return used to calculate current fund value vary by system (see "Rate of return" below for more information). The Government Accountability Office (GAO) and Pew Research Centers cite a percent funded ratio of 80 percent as the minimum threshold for a healthy fund, though the American Academy of Actuaries suggests that all pension systems "have a strategy in place to attain or maintain a funded status of 100 percent or greater."[9][10] The column labeled "SBS figure" refers to a market liability calculation of the fund by the nonprofit organization State Budget Solutions. This analysis uses a rate of return of 3.225 percent, which is based upon the 15-year Treasury bond yield. The organization calls this a "risk-free" rate of return that would make it easier for states to achieve their pension funding requirements in the future. Since 2006, all private sector corporate pension plans have incorporated market costs into their funding schemes.[11]

Basic Pension Plan Information -- Arizona
Plans Current value Percentage funded Unfunded liabilities Membership
State figure SBS figure[12] State figure SBS figure[12]
Arizona State Retirement System[13] $28,948,000,000 75.3% N/A[14] $9,502,000,000 N/A[14] 203,994 active members
Corrections Officer Retirement Plan[15] $1,512,989,421 70.7% $627,672,994 14,991 active members
Elected Officials' Retirement Plan[16] $356,345,977 59.6% $241,982,668 845 active members
Public Safety Personnel Retirement System[17] $6,051,595,012 60.2% $4,003,157,238 18,542 active members
TOTALS $36,868,930,410 71.9% 38% $14,374,812,900 $50,383,467,000 238,372 active members

Annual Required Contribution

Annual Required Contributions (ARC) are calculated annually and are a sum of two different costs. The first component is the "normal cost," or what the employer owes to the system in order to support the liabilities gained in the previous year of service. The second component is an additional payment in order to make up for previous liabilities that have not yet been paid for. According to a report by the Pew Center on the States, Arizona paid 101 percent of its annual required contribution in fiscal year 2010.[5]

On June 25, 2012, the Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) approved a plan to reform the accounting rules for state and local pension funds. These revised standards were set to take effect in fiscal years 2013 and 2014.[18] As a result, ARCs were removed as a reporting requirement. Instead, plan administrators and accountants will use an actuarially determined contribution or a statutory contribution for reporting purposes.[19]

ARC Historical Data
Fiscal year Arizona State Retirement System[13] Corrections Officer Retirement Plan[20] Elected Officials' Retirement Plan[21] Public Safety Personnel Retirement System[22]
Annual Required Contribution (ARC) Percentage contributed Annual Required Contribution (ARC) Percentage contributed Annual Required Contribution (ARC) Percentage contributed Annual Required Contribution (ARC) Percentage contributed
2012 $852,107,785 100% $56,056,555 105.2% $20,756,084 101.8% $295,491,882 104.6%
2011 $786,581,145 100% $49,303,602 105.5% $21,016,209 101.8% $272,445,607 104.9%
2010 $763,005,105 100% $52,064,974 105.4% $18,341,612 102.0% $288,210,202 104.3%
2009 $753,909,718 100% $53,807,249 108.1% $17,529,092 102.6% $316,222,272 103.1%
2008 $759,171,555 100% $43,858,925 108.0% $11,431,128 104.3% $221,732,592 104.0%

Historical funding levels

Historical pension plan data - all systems
Year Value of assets Accrued liability Unfunded liability Funded ratio
2007 $31,416,363,885 $39,220,391,699 $7,804,027,814 80.1%
2008 $33,263,684,723 $41,608,946,103 $8,345,261,380 79.9%
2009 $34,209,571,727 $44,078,393,215 $9,868,821,488 77.6%
2010 $34,902,789,883 $46,500,673,945 $11,597,884,062 75.1%
2011 $35,613,123,515 $48,637,738,190 $13,024,614,675 73.2%
Change from 2007-2011 $4,196,759,630 $9,417,346,491 $5,220,586,861 -6.9%

Rate of return

The assumed rate of return for each of Arizona's retirement systems is 8 percent.[23][20][21][22]

Analysis

Percent Funded Status of Pension Plans
in the 50 States as of November 2013
Public pensions in NevadaPublic pensions in MassachusettsPublic pensions in ColoradoPublic pensions in New MexicoPublic pensions in WyomingPublic pensions in ArizonaPublic pensions in MontanaPublic pensions in CaliforniaPublic pensions in OregonPublic pensions in WashingtonPublic pensions in IdahoPublic pensions in TexasPublic pensions in OklahomaPublic pensions in KansasPublic pensions in NebraskaPublic pensions in South DakotaPublic pensions in North DakotaPublic pensions in MinnesotaPublic pensions in IowaPublic pensions in MissouriPublic pensions in ArkansasPublic pensions in LouisianaPublic pensions in MississippiPublic pensions in AlabamaPublic pensions in GeorgiaPublic pensions in FloridaPublic pensions in South CarolinaPublic pensions in IllinoisPublic pensions in WisconsinPublic pensions in TennesseePublic pensions in North CarolinaPublic pensions in IndianaPublic pensions in OhioPublic pensions in KentuckyPublic pensions in PennsylvaniaPublic pensions in New JerseyPublic pensions in New YorkPublic pensions in VermontPublic pensions in VermontPublic pensions in New HampshirePublic pensions in MainePublic pensions in West VirginiaPublic pensions in VirginiaPublic pensions in MarylandPublic pensions in MarylandPublic pensions in ConnecticutPublic pensions in ConnecticutPublic pensions in DelawarePublic pensions in DelawarePublic pensions in Rhode IslandPublic pensions in Rhode IslandPublic pensions in MassachusettsPublic pensions in New HampshirePublic pensions in MichiganPublic pensions in MichiganPublic pensions in AlaskaPension Health 2013.png
Note: The data in this map was compiled from state CAFR reports and Actuarial Valuation documents. Figures reflect a combination of all of the state pension plans.
Funded Ratio of State Public Pension Plans as compiled by State Budget Solutions

According to a 2012 analysis by the Pew Center for the States, most state pension plans assume an 8 percent rate of return on investments.[24] Critics assert that this assumption is unrealistic, citing changing market conditions and significantly lower investment returns across the board over the past several years.[25] When states lower the rate of return in an effort to accurately predict investment earnings, it increases the current plan liabilities, thereby lowering the percent funded ratio and causing the ARC to increase. This is because future plan liabilities are discounted based on the rate of return, so smaller expected investment returns result in larger actuarially accrued liabilities.[26] For example, on September 21, 2012, the Illinois Teachers Retirement System voted to lower its rate of return from 8.5 percent to 8.0 percent. This change increased the state's fiscal year 2014 ARC from $3.07 billion to $3.36 billion.[27] Similarly, when California's CalPERS reduced its projected annual rate of return from 7.75 percent to 7.5 percent in March 2012, it cost the state an additional $303 million for fiscal year 2013.[28]

The 2008 financial crisis had a devastating effect on pension plans nationwide and has resulted in slower economic growth and increased market volatility. In light of this, some market strategists find the 8 percent assumption to be overly ambitious. Stanford University Finance Professor Joshua Rauh stated that using past investment performance in this economic climate was "dangerously optimistic."[29] Advocates for a lower assumed rate of return argue that the standard assumptions could cause pension fund managers to engage in more risky investments and imprudent stewardship of public funds. Further, if pension plans were using more conservative assumptions, such as the 3 or 4 percent assumed rate of return used in the private sector, and the plans grew more quickly than expected, the fund would have a surplus and smaller future ARCs, which would be preferable to using optimistic assumptions and potentially being caught with larger-than-expected deficits.[30][31][32][33][34]

On the other hand, traditional public pension plan advocates argue that the dip observed in recent years is not sufficient proof of a long-term, downward trend in investment returns. According to Chris Hoene, executive director at the California Budget Project, "The problem with [the market rate] argument is there isn’t significant evidence other than the short term blip during the economic crisis that there’s been that shift. It’s a speculative argument coming out of a very deep recession."[29]

The National Association of State Retirement Administrators compiled data on the median annualized rate of return for public pensions for the 1-, 3-, 5-, 10-, 20-, and 25-year periods ending in 2013. While the median annualized rate of return failed to meet the 8 percent assumption that most public pensions assume over the 5- and 10-year periods, it was just shy (7.9 percent) over the 20-year period, and it exceeded 8 percent for the 1-, 3-, and 25-year periods. It is important to note that the NASRA data is reporting the median returns, indicating that even though median annualized returns exceeded 8 percent in the 25-year period, the investment portfolios for half of the examined public pension funds failed to meet an 8 percent assumed rate of return.[35]

In September 2013, the nonprofit organization State Budget Solutions published an analysis of state pension funding levels. In its calculations, State Budget Solutions used a 3.2 percent rate of return, the 15-year Treasury bond yield as of August 21, 2013, to discount plan liabilities.

The research found that, all states combined, state public employee pension plans have only 39 percent of the assets they need to cover their promised payments—a $4.1 trillion gap. According to the report, Arizona's public pension plans were 38% funded, making it the 20th most funded state.[36]

Moody's report on adjusted pension liabilities

On June 27, 2013, Moody's Investor Service released its report on adjusted pension liabilities in the states. The Moody's report ranked states "based on ratios measuring the size of their adjusted net pension liabilities (ANPL) relative to several measures of economic capacity." In its calculations of net pension liabilities, Moody's employed market-determined discount rates (5.47 percent for Arizona) instead of the state-reported assumed rates of return (8 percent for Arizona).[37]

The report's authors found that adjusted net pension liabilities varied dramatically from state to state, from 6.8 percent (Nebraska) to 241 percent (Illinois) of governmental revenues in fiscal year 2011.[37]

The adjusted net pension liability for Arizona in fiscal year 2011 was ranked the 29th highest in the nation.[37] The following table presents key state-specific findings from the Moody's report, as well as the state's national rank with respect to each indicator.

Adjusted net pension liabilities (ANPL) relative to key economic indicators - Arizona
Governmental revenue* Personal income State GDP Per capita
State findings 26.7% 3.1% 2.7% $1,097
National ranking 38th 36th 35th 39th
*Moody's uses governmental revenues as reported in each state's consolidated annual financial reports; this includes not only state-generated revenue, but federal funds, as well.[37]

Reforms

Enacted reforms

2013

S.B. 1170

Sponsored by Senators Steve Yarbrough (R-District 17) and Bob Worsley (R-District 25), S.B. 1170 proposed numerous amendments to the ASRS. As enacted, S.B. 1170:[38]

  • Eliminates the permanent benefit increase program for members joining the pension system on or after January 1, 2014
  • Limits a survivor to a lump sum benefit or straight life annuity, eliminating five, 10 and 15 year options; applies to new survivors on or after January 1, 2014
  • "Requires the past service funding requirement to be amortized over a period that is determined by the ASRS board and consistent with generally accepted actuarial standards"
  • Prohibits the ASRS from releasing records containing the vital personal information of pension plan members for inspection

S.B. 1170 was approved by the Senate on February 11, 2013 and by the House on April 4, 2013. Governor Jan Brewer signed S.B. 1170 into law on April 16, 2013.[38]

S.B. 1173

Sponsored by Senators Yarbrough and Worsley, S.B. 1170 proposed amendments to CORP. These included increased regulation of the disbursement of disability benefits paid from the pension system and changes to the administration of the system's group health and accident insurance coverage. S.B. 1170 also stipulated that plan members could not borrow, withdraw, or take out loans against account funds until terminated from membership or upon receipt of pension.[39]

S.B. 1173 passed the Senate on February 25, 2013 and moved to the House, where it was passed on April 3, 2013. Brewer signed the bill into law on April 10, 2013.[40]

S.B. 1174

Sponsored by Senators Yarbrough and Worsley, S.B. 1170 proposed administrative amendments to EORP. These included provisions relating to the disbursement of survivor benefits to children. S.B. 1170 also stipulated that a member of the plan could not borrow, remove, or take out a loan against any account funds until terminated from membership or upon receipt of pension.[41]

Having been approved by both the Senate and the House, on February 18, 2013 and April 4, 2013 respectively, Governor Brewer signed the bill into law on April 16, 2013.

H.B. 2056

Sponsored by Representative Phil Lovas (R-District 22), H.B. 2056 proposed administrative amendments to PSPRS, including provisions relating to the disbursement of disability benefits and survivor benefits to children. The bill sought to allow the pension system's governing board to use up to 5 percent of the monies deposited into the program account in the most recent year to cover the costs of administering the Cancer Insurance Program, no contributions for which were received in the past year. H.B. 2056 also stipulated that a member of the plan could not borrow, remove, or take out a loan against any account funds until terminated from membership or upon receipt of pension.[42]

H.B. 2056 first passed the House on February 18, 2013, then moved to Senate. The Senate passed the bill with amendments on May 14, 2013, then sent it back to the House, which voted to approve the amended bill on June 12, 2013. Brewer signed H.B. 2056 into law on June 19, 2013.

H.B. 2562

Sponsored by Representative Bob Robson (R-District 18), H.B. 2562 proposed to relieve ASRS and PSPRS of liability for improperly enrolled ineligible members, modify the definition of PSPRS member, and provide coverage under the ASRS Defined Contribution Plan for employees who are ineligible for a state retirement system (e.g., part-time employees).[43]

H.B. 2562 first passed the House on February 28, 2013. The Senate passed the bill with amendments on May 8, 2013, but the House refused to accept the Senate amendments and the bill was sent to Conference Committee. On June 13 2013, the House passed the bill with Senate amendments. Brewer signed H.B. 2562 into law on June 19, 2013.[44]

H.B. 2608

Sponsored by Representative Lovas (R-District 22), H.B. 2608 proposed the closure of EORP for officials elected or appointed on or after January 1, 2014. In place of EORP, the bill established the Elected Officials' Defined Contribution Retirement System and Disability Program (EODC). The bill allowed members enrolled in EORP prior to January 1, 2014 to remain in the system.

H.B. 2608 first passed the House on February 28, 2013. The Senate passed the bill with amendments on May 8, 2013. The House approved the amended bill on June 13, 2013. Brewer signed H.B. 2608 into law on June 19, 2013.[45]

2012

H.B. 2264

Sponsored by Representative Robson (R-District 20), H.B. 2264 rescinded changes made in 2011 to the ratio of employer/employee contributions to the ASRS, returning the ratio to a 50/50 employer/employee split (the ratio had been set at a 47/53 employer/employee split). The bill also provided for the refund of excess contribution since the enactment of the rescinded legislation.[46]

H.B. 2264 passed the House on March 5, 2012 and moved to the Senate, where it was passed on April 24, 2012. Governor Brewer signed the bill into law on May 7, 2012.[47]

H.B. 2745

Sponsored by Representative David Burnell Smith (R-District 7), H.B. 2745 proposed a variety of amendments to the ASRS. These included the elimination of the Level Income Alternative for retirements starting on or after July 1, 2013 and the reduction of the credited service requirement that a member must have before making a service purchase from 10 to five years. The bill also prohibited the requirement of an alternate contribution rate for a retired PSPRS member who is required to participate in another state retirement system and who returned to work before July 20, 2011.[48]

Governor Brewer signed the bill into law on May 15, 2012.[49]

H.B. 2409

Sponsored by Representatives David Stevens (R-District 25), Karen Fann (R-District 1), Gail Griffin (R-District 25) and Don Shooter (R-District 24), H.B. 2409 proposed amendments to EORP, PSPRS and CORP pertaining to service credit requirements. The bill stipulated that members who purchase service must make payments directly to the plan in lump sum payments, installment payments over a period of time, or through eligible rollover distributions. The bill also reduced the number of years required in order to purchase service from 10 to five.[50][51]

The bill was signed into law on May 14, 2012.[52]

Proposed reforms

2013

A number of additional reforms were proposed during the 2013 session of the Arizona State Legislature, but the majority of those died in committee or were incorporated into legislation that was ultimately enacted (see above for more details).[53]

2012

S.B. 1120 Sponsored by Senator Yarbrough, S.B. 1120 proposed moving the effective date of the EORP and CORP benefit increase adjustments from 2013 to 2012.[54]

The bill passed the Senate on January 26, 2013, but failed in the House.[55]

H.C.R. 2060

H.C.R. 2060 proposed to allow increases in member contributions or reductions in cost of living adjustments in the interest of the stability of the EORP, subject to voter approval.[56]

H.C.R. 2060 passed the House on March 5, 2012, but ultimately failed in the Senate.[57]

State and employee contributions

Attempted change

In 2011, the state enacted a change in the employer/employee contribution ratio to the ASRS, increasing employee contributions from 50 percent to 53 percent and decreasing employer contributions from 50 to 47 percent. This move was predicted to save the state approximately $40 million. Three unions filed suit, arguing that the changes violated state constitutional protections for contracts.[58] In February 2012, a Maricopa County Superior Court judge ruled that the change was unconstitutional. The judge noted in her ruling that the state Constitution describes the public retirement system as a contractual relationship between the state and its employees and that state statutes do indeed forbid laws "impairing the obligation of a contract."[59]

On May 7, 2012 Gov. Jan Brewer signed into H.B. 2264, which reversed the change and mandated a refund of excess contributions.[60][61]

Local public pensions

See also: Local government public pensions

According to the United States Census Bureau, the state has three locally-administered pension plans. They are the Phoenix Employees Retirement Plan, Tucson Supplemental Retirement System and the Salt River Project Agriculture Improvement and Power District Pension Plan.[62][63]

Transparency

See also: Public pension disclosure and Governmental Accounting Standards Board
  • The names of recipients and the amounts disbursed to recipients are available upon request, provided they are considered “public records" as defined by A.R.S. Section 41-1350.[64]
  • The ASRS website provides the name, photo, term information and biography of each member of the Board of Trustees.[65]

Recent news

This section displays the most recent stories in a Google news search for the term "Arizona + public + pensions"

All stories may not be relevant to this page due to the nature of the search engine.

Arizona Public Pensions News Feed

  • Loading...

See also

External links

References

  1. Figures below are compiled by adding up all state pension plans
  2. This figure is derived by calculating the percent difference between the current year's funding level and the system's percent funded from the prior year.
  3. Rank is relative to the 50 state pension programs. "1" refers to the healthiest pension plan while "50" would be the least well-funded plan.
  4. Arizona State Retirement System "History of the ASRS," accessed October 29, 2013
  5. 5.0 5.1 Pew Center on the States "Widening Gap Update: Arizona," June 18, 2012
  6. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development "Pensions Glossary," accessed November 27, 2013
  7. Gabriel Roeder Smith & Company, Consultants & Actuaries "About Us," accessed October 29, 2013
  8. Buck Consultants "About Buck," accessed October 28, 2013
  9. United States Government Accountability Office Report to the Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate "State and Local Government Retiree Benefits: Current Status of Benefit Structures, Protections, and Fiscal Outlook for Funding Future Costs," September 2007. Accessed October 23, 2013
  10. American Academy of Actuaries "Issue Brief: The 80% Pension Funding Standard Myth," July 2012. Accessed October 23, 2013
  11. Governing Magazine " Is There a Plot Against Pensions?" October 14, 2013
  12. 12.0 12.1 State Budget Solutions, "Promises Made, Promises Broken - The Betrayal of Pensioners and Taxpayers," accessed September 20, 2013
  13. 13.0 13.1 13.2 Arizona State Retirement System "Actuarial Report on the Valuation of the Plan as of June 30, 2012," accessed October 29, 2013
  14. 14.0 14.1 Analysis only available for system totals and not individual funds.
  15. 15.0 15.1 Arizona Corrections Officer Retirement Plan "Arizona Corrections Officer Retirement Plan Consolidated Report, June 30, 2012," accessed October 29, 2013
  16. 16.0 16.1 Elected Officials' Retirement Plan "Elected Officials' Retirement Plan Consolidated Report, June 30, 2012," accessed October 29, 2013
  17. 17.0 17.1 Public Safety Personnel Retirement System "Public Safety Personnel Retirement System Consolidated Report, June 30, 2012," accessed October 29, 2013
  18. Reuters "Little-known U.S. board stokes hot pension debate," July 10, 2012
  19. State Budget Solutions "GASB's ineffective public pension reporting standards set to take effect," June 5, 2013
  20. 20.0 20.1 Corrections Officer Retirement Plan "Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2012," accessed October 29, 2013
  21. 21.0 21.1 Elected Officials' Retirement Plan "Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2012," accessed October 29, 2013
  22. 22.0 22.1 Public Safety Personnel Retirement System "Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2012
  23. Arizona State Retirement System "Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2012," accessed October 29, 2013
  24. "The Widening Gap Update,” Pew Center on the States, accessed October 17, 2013
  25. The New York Times "Public Pensions Faulted for Bets on Rosy Returns," May 27, 2012
  26. Benefits Magazine "Public Pension Funding 101: Key Terms and Concepts," April 2013. accessed October 23, 2013
  27. Crain's Chicago Business "State teachers pension board lowers expected rate of return," September 21, 2013. accessed October 23, 2013
  28. Huffington Post "California Pension Funds Expect Lower Investment Return," March 14, 2012. accessed October 23, 2013
  29. 29.0 29.1 Governing "Expert: Governments Are Masking Their Pension Liabilities ," October 25, 2013. accessed October 25, 2013
  30. The Washington Post "Kansas’s pension funding gap just grew by $1 billion," September 6, 2013. accessed October 25, 2013
  31. Topeka Capital-Journal "KPERS' unfunded liability rises to $10.2B," September 4, 2013. accessed October 25, 2013
  32. Wall Street Journal "Pensions Wrestle With Return Rates," October 10, 2011. accessed October 23, 2013
  33. The Courant "Promising Too Much On Public Pensions," August 10, 2012. accessed October 23, 2013
  34. Business Wire "NCPERS 2013 Survey: Public Pension Plans Report Increasing Confidence, Lower Costs, Growing Returns," October 22, 2013. accessed October 25, 2013
  35. National Association of State Retirement Administrators "Issue Brief: Public Pension Plan Investment Return Assumptions," October 2013. accessed October 23, 2013
  36. State Budget Solutions, "Promises Made, Promises Broken - The Betrayal of Pensioners and Taxpayers," accessed September 20, 2013
  37. 37.0 37.1 37.2 37.3 Moody's Investor Service "Adjusted Pension Liability Medians for US States," June 27, 2013
  38. 38.0 38.1 Arizona State Senate, Fifty-First Legislature, First Regular Session "Final Amended Fact Sheet for S.B. 1170," accessed October 29, 2013
  39. Arizona State Senate, Fifty-First Legislature, First Regular Session "S.B. 1173 Summary," accessed October 29, 2013
  40. Arizona State Senate, Fifty-First Legislature, First Regular Session "S.B. 1173 Bill Status Overview," accessed October 29, 2013
  41. Arizona State Senate, Fifty-First Legislature, First Regular Session "S.B. 1174 Summary," accessed October 29, 2013
  42. Arizona State House of Representatives, Fifty-First Legislature, First Regular Session "H.B. 2056 Summary," accessed October 29, 2013
  43. ''Arizona State House of Representatives, Fifty-First Legislature, First Regular Session "H.B. 2562 Summary," accessed October 30, 2013
  44. Arizona State Legislature "H.B. 2562 Bill Status Overview," accessed October 30, 2013
  45. Arizona State Legislature "H.B. 2608 Bill Status Overview," accessed October 30, 2013
  46. Arizona State Senate, Fiftieth Legislature, Second Regular Session "H.B. 2264 Summary," accessed October 30, 2013
  47. Arizona State Legislature "H.B. 2264 Bill Status Overview," accessed October 30, 2013
  48. Arizona State Senate, Fiftieth Legislature, Second Regular Session "H.B. 2745 Summary," accessed October 30, 2013
  49. Arizona State Legislature "H.B. 2745 Bill Status Overview," accessed October 30, 2013
  50. Public Safety Personnel Retirement System "2012 Legislative Session, Enacted Bills Only," accessed October 30, 2013
  51. Arizona State House of Representatives, Fiftieth Legislature, Second Regular Session "H.B. 2409 Summary," accessed October 30, 2013
  52. Arizona State Legislature "H.B. 2409 Bill Status Overview," accessed October 30, 2013
  53. National Conference for State Legislatures "Pensions and Retirement State Legislation Database - Arizona 2013," accessed October 30, 2013
  54. Arizona State Senate, Fiftieth Legislature, Second Regular Session "S.B. 1120 Summary," accessed October 30, 2013
  55. Arizona State Legislature "S.B. 1120 Bill Status Overview," accessed October 30, 2013
  56. Arizona State Senate, Fiftieth Legislature, Second Regular Session "Fact Sheet for H.C.R. 2060," accessed October 30, 2013
  57. Arizona State Legislature "H.C.R. 2060 Bill Status Overview," accessed October 30, 2013
  58. TriValley Central "Unions challenge Arizona on retirement contributions," accessed July 20, 2011
  59. Arizona Republic Arizona pension law ruled unconstitutional February 12, 2012
  60. Arizona Republic "Arizona may undo fix to pension system," January 18, 2012
  61. AZ.gov "ASRS Employee & Employer Contributions (HB 2264)," accessed July 19, 2013
  62. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named census2010
  63. U.S. Census, Pension Report, Unit ID file, accessed July 18, 2013
  64. Recipient information
  65. ASRS, Board of Trustees