Difference between revisions of "Public pensions in Iowa"

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Text replace - "n'' "" to "n'', "")
m (Text replace - "e'' "" to "e'', "")
Line 30: Line 30:
 
In fiscal year 2012, according to the IPERS, MFPRSI and state Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports, Iowa had a total of 168,898 active members in its retirement plans.<ref name=IPERSCAFR>[http://www.ipers.org/publications/misc/pdf/financial/cafr/cafr.pdf ''Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System'', "Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year 2012," accessed November 11, 2013]</ref><ref name=stateCAFR>[http://das.sae.iowa.gov/financial_reports/2012_cafr.pdf ''State of Iowa'', "Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2012," accessed November 11, 2013]</ref><ref name=MFPRSI>[http://www.mfprsi.org/site_media/uploads/annual_reports/annual_report_2012.pdf ''Municipal Fire and Police Retirement System of Iowa'', "Annual Report, Year Ended June 30, 2012," accessed November 11, 2013]</ref> 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).<ref>[http://www.oecd.org/daf/fin/private-pensions/2496718.pdf ''Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development'', "Pensions Glossary," accessed November 27, 2013]</ref>
 
In fiscal year 2012, according to the IPERS, MFPRSI and state Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports, Iowa had a total of 168,898 active members in its retirement plans.<ref name=IPERSCAFR>[http://www.ipers.org/publications/misc/pdf/financial/cafr/cafr.pdf ''Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System'', "Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year 2012," accessed November 11, 2013]</ref><ref name=stateCAFR>[http://das.sae.iowa.gov/financial_reports/2012_cafr.pdf ''State of Iowa'', "Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2012," accessed November 11, 2013]</ref><ref name=MFPRSI>[http://www.mfprsi.org/site_media/uploads/annual_reports/annual_report_2012.pdf ''Municipal Fire and Police Retirement System of Iowa'', "Annual Report, Year Ended June 30, 2012," accessed November 11, 2013]</ref> 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).<ref>[http://www.oecd.org/daf/fin/private-pensions/2496718.pdf ''Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development'', "Pensions Glossary," accessed November 27, 2013]</ref>
  
The following data was collected from the IPERS, MFPRSI and state Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports. The "percentage funded" is calculated by taking the current value of the fund and dividing by the estimated amount of total liabilities. The assumed rate of return used to calculate fund value varied by system in fiscal year 2012 (see [[Public pensions in Iowa#Rate of return|"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."<ref>[http://www.gao.gov/assets/270/267150.pdf ''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]</ref><ref>[http://www.actuary.org/files/80_Percent_Funding_IB_071912.pdf ''American Academy of Actuaries'', "Issue Brief: The 80% Pension Funding Standard Myth," July 2012. Accessed October 23, 2013]</ref> 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.<ref>[http://www.governing.com/blogs/view/gov-plot-against-pensions-report.html ''Governing Magazine'' " Is There a Plot Against Pensions?" October 14, 2013]</ref>
+
The following data was collected from the IPERS, MFPRSI and state Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports. The "percentage funded" is calculated by taking the current value of the fund and dividing by the estimated amount of total liabilities. The assumed rate of return used to calculate fund value varied by system in fiscal year 2012 (see [[Public pensions in Iowa#Rate of return|"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."<ref>[http://www.gao.gov/assets/270/267150.pdf ''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]</ref><ref>[http://www.actuary.org/files/80_Percent_Funding_IB_071912.pdf ''American Academy of Actuaries'', "Issue Brief: The 80% Pension Funding Standard Myth," July 2012. Accessed October 23, 2013]</ref> 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.<ref>[http://www.governing.com/blogs/view/gov-plot-against-pensions-report.html ''Governing Magazine'', " Is There a Plot Against Pensions?" October 14, 2013]</ref>
  
 
{| class="wikitable" style="width:65%;"
 
{| class="wikitable" style="width:65%;"
Line 210: Line 210:
 
'''Moody's report on adjusted pension liabilities'''
 
'''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 (5.67 percent for Iowa) instead of the state-reported assumed rates of return (7.50 percent for Iowa's largest plan as of July 1, 2011).<ref name=moodys>[http://www.ncsl.org/documents/summit/summit2013/online-resources/Moody-Adjusted-Pension-Liability-Medians.pdf ''Moody's Investor Service'' "Adjusted Pension Liability Medians for US States," June 27, 2013]</ref>
+
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 (5.67 percent for Iowa) instead of the state-reported assumed rates of return (7.50 percent for Iowa's largest plan as of July 1, 2011).<ref name=moodys>[http://www.ncsl.org/documents/summit/summit2013/online-resources/Moody-Adjusted-Pension-Liability-Medians.pdf ''Moody's Investor Service'', "Adjusted Pension Liability Medians for US States," June 27, 2013]</ref>
  
 
The report's authors found that adjusted net pension liabilities varied dramatically from state to state, from 6.8  percent ([[Nebraska public pensions|Nebraska]]) to 241 percent ([[Illinois public pensions|Illinois]]) of governmental revenues in fiscal year 2011.<ref name=moodys/>
 
The report's authors found that adjusted net pension liabilities varied dramatically from state to state, from 6.8  percent ([[Nebraska public pensions|Nebraska]]) to 241 percent ([[Illinois public pensions|Illinois]]) of governmental revenues in fiscal year 2011.<ref name=moodys/>
Line 232: Line 232:
 
|}
 
|}
 
'''2014 Public Interest Institute report'''<br>
 
'''2014 Public Interest Institute report'''<br>
In January 2014, the Public Interest Institute, an Iowa-based public policy organization, published an analysis of the state’s pension system’s problems, including possible reforms. The analysis was based on the total liability of the Iowa Public Employee Retirement System (IPERS), which was $29.4 billion for FY 2012, and the expected shortfall of $5.9 billion, since the total value fund was only $23.5 billion in FY 2012.<ref name="public interest">[http://limitedgovernment.org/brief21-1.html ''Public Interest Institute'' "Innovative Pension Reform in Utah – an Example for Iowa," accessed April 2, 2014]</ref> The report identified the state’s defined benefit system as a major factor for the system’s financial risk. “These DB systems create two major risks in a market decline: first, the potential of not being able to pay the promised benefits, though legally required to, and second, those required payments resulting in both significant risk of potential bankruptcy for the state and large tax increases for all workers.” The report advocated a reform of the system based on [[Utah]]’s changes to its own public pension system.<ref name="public interest" /> This would include a 401k-type plan for all new state government employees and a cap on the state’s contributions to a DB plan of 10 percent if the employee did not want a 401k plan (in which the employee must make up the difference for a contribution over 10 percent). In the Institute’s estimation, a Defined Contribution (DC) plan would prevent future risks to the state and taxpayers.<ref name="public interest" />
+
In January 2014, the Public Interest Institute, an Iowa-based public policy organization, published an analysis of the state’s pension system’s problems, including possible reforms. The analysis was based on the total liability of the Iowa Public Employee Retirement System (IPERS), which was $29.4 billion for FY 2012, and the expected shortfall of $5.9 billion, since the total value fund was only $23.5 billion in FY 2012.<ref name="public interest">[http://limitedgovernment.org/brief21-1.html ''Public Interest Institute'', "Innovative Pension Reform in Utah – an Example for Iowa," accessed April 2, 2014]</ref> The report identified the state’s defined benefit system as a major factor for the system’s financial risk. “These DB systems create two major risks in a market decline: first, the potential of not being able to pay the promised benefits, though legally required to, and second, those required payments resulting in both significant risk of potential bankruptcy for the state and large tax increases for all workers.” The report advocated a reform of the system based on [[Utah]]’s changes to its own public pension system.<ref name="public interest" /> This would include a 401k-type plan for all new state government employees and a cap on the state’s contributions to a DB plan of 10 percent if the employee did not want a 401k plan (in which the employee must make up the difference for a contribution over 10 percent). In the Institute’s estimation, a Defined Contribution (DC) plan would prevent future risks to the state and taxpayers.<ref name="public interest" />
  
 
==Reforms==
 
==Reforms==
Line 239: Line 239:
 
'''S.F. 220'''
 
'''S.F. 220'''
  
S.F. 220 proposed changes relating to the retirement incentive programs that school districts may offer to employees and pay for through the district management levy. The bill sought to allow districts to pay for such a program through the district management levy for employees aged 55 years or older. The bill passed the Senate on March 12, 2013, but stalled in committee in the House.<ref>[http://coolice.legis.iowa.gov/Cool-ICE/default.asp?Category=billinfo&Service=Billbook&menu=false&hbill=SF220&ga=85 ''The Iowa Legislature'' "Senate File 220," accessed November 11, 2013]</ref>
+
S.F. 220 proposed changes relating to the retirement incentive programs that school districts may offer to employees and pay for through the district management levy. The bill sought to allow districts to pay for such a program through the district management levy for employees aged 55 years or older. The bill passed the Senate on March 12, 2013, but stalled in committee in the House.<ref>[http://coolice.legis.iowa.gov/Cool-ICE/default.asp?Category=billinfo&Service=Billbook&menu=false&hbill=SF220&ga=85 ''The Iowa Legislature'', "Senate File 220," accessed November 11, 2013]</ref>
  
 
====2012====
 
====2012====
 
'''H.F. 418'''
 
'''H.F. 418'''
  
Sponsored by Representative [[Stewart Iverson, Jr.]], H.F. 418 proposed to establish a mandatory defined contribution retirement plan for all employees beginning eligible employment on or after July 1, 2013. Introduced on February 25, 2011, the bill was sent to the House Committee on State Government, where it stalled.<ref>[http://coolice.legis.iowa.gov/Cool-ICE/default.asp?Category=billinfo&Service=Billbook&menu=true&ga=84&hbill=HF418 ''The Iowa Legislature'' "House File 418," accessed November 11, 2013]</ref>
+
Sponsored by Representative [[Stewart Iverson, Jr.]], H.F. 418 proposed to establish a mandatory defined contribution retirement plan for all employees beginning eligible employment on or after July 1, 2013. Introduced on February 25, 2011, the bill was sent to the House Committee on State Government, where it stalled.<ref>[http://coolice.legis.iowa.gov/Cool-ICE/default.asp?Category=billinfo&Service=Billbook&menu=true&ga=84&hbill=HF418 ''The Iowa Legislature'', "House File 418," accessed November 11, 2013]</ref>
  
 
==Local public pensions==
 
==Local public pensions==

Revision as of 07:43, 8 May 2014

Iowa public pensions
Policypedia pension logo-no background.png
Pension system
Number of pension systems 4
State pension systems: Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System
Judicial Retirement System
Peace Officers' Retirement, Accident and Disability System
Municipal Fire and Police Retirement System of Iowa
System type: Defined benefit plan
Pension health (2012)[1]
Fund value: $25,778,883,461
Estimated liabilities: $32,590,435,486
Unfunded liabilities : $6,811,552,025
Percent funded: 79.10%
Percent funded change: Decrease.svg0.34%[2]
Percent funded rank: 14[3]
Pension fund members (2012)
Total members: 340,804
Active members: 168,898
Other members: 171,906
Other state pension information
AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyoming

Horizontal-Policypedia logo-color.png
Public pensions
State public pension plans
Public pension health by state
Iowa public pensions are the state mechanism by which state and many local government employees in Iowa receive retirement benefits. The Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System (IPERS), the Judicial Retirement System (JRS) and the Peace Officers' Retirement, Accident and Disability System (PORADS) administer benefits to the state's eligible retirees. The Municipal Fire and Police Retirement System of Iowa (MFPRSI) provides benefits to eligible municipal police and fire personnel.

According to the United States Census Bureau, the state has five locally-administered pension systems.[4]

A 2012 report from the Pew Center on the States noted that Iowa's pension system was funded at 81 percent at the close of fiscal year 2010, just above the 80 precent funding level experts recommend. Consequently, Pew designated the state's pension system as being in need of "improvement."[5]

The funding ratio for the state's pension systems decreased from 89.57 percent in fiscal year 2007 to 79.10 percent in fiscal year 2012, a 10.47 percent drop. Likewise, unfunded liabilities increased from approximately $3.7 billion in fiscal year 2007 to more than $6.8 billion in fiscal year 2012.

Features

Pension plans

In fiscal year 2012, according to the IPERS, MFPRSI and state Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports, Iowa had a total of 168,898 active members in its retirement plans.[6][7][8] 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).[9]

The following data was collected from the IPERS, MFPRSI and state Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports. The "percentage funded" is calculated by taking the current value of the fund and dividing by the estimated amount of total liabilities. The assumed rate of return used to calculate fund value varied by system in fiscal year 2012 (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."[10][11] 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.[12]

Basic Pension Plan Information -- Iowa[6][7]
Plans Current value Percentage funded Unfunded liabilities Membership
State figure SBS figure[13] State figure SBS figure[13]
Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System $23,530,094,461 79.91% N/A[14] $5,916,103,025 N/A[14] 164,200 active members
Judicial Retirement System $117,272,000 68.89% $52,960,000 192 active members
Peace Officers' Retirement, Accident and Disability System $292,910,000 61.00% $187,247,000 618 active members
Municipal Fire and Police Retirement System of Iowa $1,838,607,000 73.7% $655,242,000 3,888 active members
TOTALS $25,778,883,461 79.10% 43% $6,811,552,025 $33,926,261,000 168,898 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, in 2010 Iowa paid 89 percent of its annual required contribution.[5][15]

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.[16] 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.[17]

ARC historical data*[6][8]
Fiscal year IPERS MFPRSI
Annual Required Contribution (ARC) Percentage contributed Annual Required Contribution (ARC) Percentage contributed
2012 $568,389,507 98.2% $61,911,684 100%
2011 $568,397,561 82.3% $47,392,747 100%
2010 $501,893,236 89.5% $39,852,678 100%
2009 $473,054,363 87.8% $42,112,894 100%
2008 $432,828,217 87.2% $54,565,393 100%

Historical funding levels

Historical pension plan data - all systems[6][7][18][8]
Year Value of assets Accrued liability Unfunded liability Funded ratio
2007 $22,901,751,415 $25,567,175,782 $2,665,424,367 89.57%
2008 $24,144,085,183 $27,189,867,589 $3,045,783,406 88.80%
2009 $23,415,317,941 $28,819,161,823 $5,403,943,882 81.25%
2010 $23,790,063,560 $29,354,232,650 $5,564,170,090 81.04%
2011 $24,840,953,199 $31,271,680,114 $6,430,726,915 79.44%
Change from 2007-2011 $1,939,201,784 $5,704,504,332 $3,765,302,548 -10.14%

Rate of return

The Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System, the Judicial Retirement System and the Municipal Fire and Police Retirement System of Iowa presume a 7.50 percent return rate on their pension investments.[6][7][8] The Peace Officers' Retirement, Accident and Disability System presumes an 8.00 percent return rate on its pension investments.[7]

Analysis

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.[19] Critics assert that this assumption is unrealistic, citing changing market conditions and significantly lower investment returns across the board over the past several years.[20]

Using a lower rate of return to predict investment earnings accurately, however, increases the current plan liabilities. This would lower the percent funded ratio and and require increased employer contributions (ARCs). 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.[21] 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.[22] 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.[23]

Financial crisis

The 2008 financial crisis had a devastating effect on pension plans nationwide because of slower economic growth and increased market volatility. Some market strategists found the 8 percent assumption to be overly ambitious and "dangerously optimistic."[24] Advocates for a lower assumed rate of return argue that the standard 8 percent 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 because of a higher rate of return, the fund would have a surplus and smaller future required contributions (ARCs), which would be preferable to using optimistic assumptions and potentially being caught with larger-than-expected deficits.[25][26][27][28][29]

Traditional public pension plan advocates argue that the dip in recent years does not prove there is 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."[24]

The National Association of State Retirement Administrators researched the median annualized rate of return for public pensions for the 1-, 3-, 5-, 10-, 20- and 25-year periods ending in 2013 and found it was 7.9 percent over the 20-year period, and exceeded 8 percent for the 1-, 3- and 25-year periods. It is important to note that the NASRA data reported the median returns, which means that median annualized returns of investment portfolios for half of the examined public pension funds failed to meet an 8 percent assumed rate of return.[30]

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 (5.67 percent for Iowa) instead of the state-reported assumed rates of return (7.50 percent for Iowa's largest plan as of July 1, 2011).[31]

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.[31]

The adjusted net pension liability for Iowa's largest pension fund (IPERS) in fiscal year 2011 was ranked the 46th highest in the nation.[31] 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 - Iowa
Governmental revenue* Personal income State GDP Per capita
State findings 16.1% 1.9% 1.6% $767
National ranking 47th 47th 48th 46th
*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.[31]

2014 Public Interest Institute report
In January 2014, the Public Interest Institute, an Iowa-based public policy organization, published an analysis of the state’s pension system’s problems, including possible reforms. The analysis was based on the total liability of the Iowa Public Employee Retirement System (IPERS), which was $29.4 billion for FY 2012, and the expected shortfall of $5.9 billion, since the total value fund was only $23.5 billion in FY 2012.[32] The report identified the state’s defined benefit system as a major factor for the system’s financial risk. “These DB systems create two major risks in a market decline: first, the potential of not being able to pay the promised benefits, though legally required to, and second, those required payments resulting in both significant risk of potential bankruptcy for the state and large tax increases for all workers.” The report advocated a reform of the system based on Utah’s changes to its own public pension system.[32] This would include a 401k-type plan for all new state government employees and a cap on the state’s contributions to a DB plan of 10 percent if the employee did not want a 401k plan (in which the employee must make up the difference for a contribution over 10 percent). In the Institute’s estimation, a Defined Contribution (DC) plan would prevent future risks to the state and taxpayers.[32]

Reforms

Proposed reforms

2013

S.F. 220

S.F. 220 proposed changes relating to the retirement incentive programs that school districts may offer to employees and pay for through the district management levy. The bill sought to allow districts to pay for such a program through the district management levy for employees aged 55 years or older. The bill passed the Senate on March 12, 2013, but stalled in committee in the House.[33]

2012

H.F. 418

Sponsored by Representative Stewart Iverson, Jr., H.F. 418 proposed to establish a mandatory defined contribution retirement plan for all employees beginning eligible employment on or after July 1, 2013. Introduced on February 25, 2011, the bill was sent to the House Committee on State Government, where it stalled.[34]

Local public pensions

See also: Local government public pensions

According to the United States Census Bureau, the state has five locally-administered pension plans.[4]

Transparency

See also: Public pension disclosure and Governmental Accounting Standards Board
  • Financial information is available on the pension system's website. Data is available under the state's sunshine laws.[35]
  • Names of pension recipients are available.[35] Amounts disbursed to pension recipients are available.[35]
  • Investment performance data is available on the IPERS website.[36]
  • Unfunded liabilities are disclosed in the actuarial section of the systems' Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports.[6][7][8]
  • Laws are in place governing gift and hospitality exchanges involving managers and board members of public pension funds. Managers and board members are required to submit regular asset disclosure forms, which are available to the public.[37]

Recent news

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

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

Iowa 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. 4.0 4.1 United States Census Bureau, "Public Employee Retirement Systems State- and Locally-Administered Pensions Summary Report: 2010," April 30, 2012
  5. 5.0 5.1 Pew Center on the States, "Widening Gap Update: Iowa," June 18, 2012
  6. 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System, "Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year 2012," accessed November 11, 2013
  7. 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 State of Iowa, "Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2012," accessed November 11, 2013
  8. 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 Municipal Fire and Police Retirement System of Iowa, "Annual Report, Year Ended June 30, 2012," accessed November 11, 2013
  9. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, "Pensions Glossary," accessed November 27, 2013
  10. 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
  11. American Academy of Actuaries, "Issue Brief: The 80% Pension Funding Standard Myth," July 2012. Accessed October 23, 2013
  12. Governing Magazine, " Is There a Plot Against Pensions?" October 14, 2013
  13. 13.0 13.1 State Budget Solutions, "Promises Made, Promises Broken - The Betrayal of Pensioners and Taxpayers," accessed September 20, 2013
  14. 14.0 14.1 Analysis only available for system totals and not individual funds.
  15. Government Accounting Standards Board, "Annual Required Contribution (ARC)," accessed October 17, 2013
  16. Reuters, "Little-known U.S. board stokes hot pension debate," July 10, 2012
  17. State Budget Solutions, "GASB's ineffective public pension reporting standards set to take effect," June 5, 2013
  18. 18.0 18.1 18.2 State of Iowa, "Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2009," accessed November 11, 2013
  19. The Widening Gap Update, "Pew Center on the States," accessed October 17, 2013
  20. The New York Times, "Public Pensions Faulted for Bets on Rosy Returns," accessed May 27, 2012
  21. Benefits Magazine, "Public Pension Funding 101: Key Terms and Concepts," accessed October 23, 2013
  22. Crain's Chicago Business, "State teachers pension board lowers expected rate of return," accessed September 21, 2013
  23. Huffington Post, "California Pension Funds Expect Lower Investment Return," accessed March 14, 2012
  24. 24.0 24.1 Governing, "Expert: Governments Are Masking Their Pension Liabilities," accessed October 25, 2013
  25. The Washington Post, "Kansas’s pension funding gap just grew by $1 billion," accessed September 6, 2013
  26. Topeka Capital-Journal, "KPERS' unfunded liability rises to $10.2B," accessed September 4, 2013
  27. Wall Street Journal, "Pensions Wrestle With Return Rates," accessed October 10, 2011
  28. The Courant, "Promising Too Much On Public Pensions," accessed August 10, 2012
  29. Business Wire, "NCPERS 2013 Survey: Public Pension Plans Report Increasing Confidence, Lower Costs, Growing Returns," accessed October 22, 2013
  30. National Association of State Retirement Administrators, "Issue Brief: Public Pension Plan Investment Return Assumptions," accessed October 23, 2013
  31. 31.0 31.1 31.2 31.3 Moody's Investor Service, "Adjusted Pension Liability Medians for US States," June 27, 2013
  32. 32.0 32.1 32.2 Public Interest Institute, "Innovative Pension Reform in Utah – an Example for Iowa," accessed April 2, 2014
  33. The Iowa Legislature, "Senate File 220," accessed November 11, 2013
  34. The Iowa Legislature, "House File 418," accessed November 11, 2013
  35. 35.0 35.1 35.2 Sunshine Review, Public Pension Disclosure
  36. Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System, "Investment Returns," accessed November 11, 2013
  37. State Integrity Investigation, "Iowa, State Pension Fund Management," accessed November 11, 2013