Now that state legislators have closed the largest budget deficit in Connecticut history, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's administration has a new challenge: Fix a state employee pension system on a collision course with fiscal collapse in about two decades.
Office of Policy and Management Secretary Benjamin Barnes, Malloy's budget chief, presented the challenge Tuesday to the legislature's Appropriations and Finance, Revenue and Bonding committees during OPM's annual budget briefing. And though he didn't propose a specific timetable to meet the challenge, it could ultimately add hundreds of millions of dollars in costs to the annual state budget.
"There is enormous work left to be done with respect to the fiscal condition of the state of Connecticut," Barnes told lawmakers as part of his office's Fiscal Accountability Report, an annual briefing on short- and long-term budget issues.
"State government is leaner and more efficient" as a result of the $1.6 billion concessions deal ratified in August with state employee unions, as well as other spending cuts, agency mergers and efficiencies ordered in the $20.14 billion budget adopted in June, Barnes said.
But he also noted that the governor, who took office in January, inherited a financial picture plagued with more than $71 billion in long-term debt -- one of the highest burdens, per capita, of any state in the nation.
That includes: bonded debt stemming largely from school construction, roads, bridges and other capital projects; pension funds and health care benefits for retired state workers and teachers.
Among the pension funds, the program for state employees is in the worst shape.
According to the last actuarial valuation, the fund had reached a 22-year low, as of June 30, 2010.
State government had $9.35 billion in assets in the pension fund as of mid-2010, but it owes $21.1 billion. Together, these represent a funded ratio of 44.4 percent. Actuaries typically cite a ratio of 80 percent as fiscally healthy. The last time the ratio hovered close to 45 percent was in 1988.
Barnes noted that state government has failed to reach healthy funding levels in its employee pension program for most of its history.
How the problem began
Connecticut's pension fund began as a pay-as-you-go system. For nearly four decades, state government put nothing away, and therefore gained no investment earnings, to help cover pension costs.
Annual contributions into the pension fund, which began in the early 1980s, fulfill two purposes: Meeting the "normal cost," or saving to cover the benefits earned by workers during the year; and making up -- over a 30-year schedule -- for the dollars Connecticut should have saved in decades past to meet its obligations.
Another huge wrench was thrown into the fiscal works in 1995, when then-Gov. John G. Rowland and employee unions agreed to put the pension program on what amounts to a balloon mortgage schedule.
The two sides agreed to abandon a pension fund contribution schedule that required largely equal payments, with annual inflationary adjustments, over the next 30 years to eliminate the unfunded liability.
In its place they imposed a system of ever-escalating payments. Although payments were lowered in the short-term, they have been increasing dramatically since the late-1990s.
The state's annual contribution to the pension fund, which stood at $844 million last year and tops $1 billion this year, is on pace to hit $1.5 billion in 2022, top $2 billion by 2027, and approach $4 billion by 2032, according to OPM.
"It gets spectacularly ugly," Barnes said, adding that it's time for the administration and legislature to search for a way to shift from the "back-weighted system" and move "toward more level funding."
Barnes didn't offer specific proposals Tuesday, though he made it clear that this can only be resolved over the long term.
A 2010 panel formed by then-Gov. M. Jodi Rell to propose solutions to the huge funding gaps facing retirement benefit programs ordered an analysis that concluded that the state would have had to add an extra $550 million to its annual pension contribution last fiscal year to get the pension system back on a level-funding schedule.
But Malloy's budget chief did make it clear that he thinks there is only one solution that will solve most of the problem: dedicating money to meet the state's responsibilities.
"The only way to solve long-term structural liabilities is to pay them off," he said, adding that the sooner Connecticut addresses this problem, the more progress it will make. That's because larger contributions to the pension fund will increase investment earnings, which in turn will be reinvested and produce more income for the pension system in future years.
Sen. Eileen Daily, D-Westbrook, co-chairwoman of the finance committee, said the administration made progress reducing Connecticut's pension fund issues during the August concessions deal. The savings negotiated in that deal are being assessed by actuaries who are expected to issue a report in late December.
But Daily said most state officials who have looked honestly at the pension obligations would come to the same conclusion that Barnes did.
"I think Mr. Barnes made clear what we know: that we have to do this," Daily said, adding that Connecticut's benefits contract with the State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition extends through 2022.
But Sen. Robert Kane of Watertown, ranking Republican senator on the Appropriations Committee, said Connecticut might have been able to cut its pension costs even further in 2017 -- when its benefits contract with unions originally was set to expire -- had Malloy not agreed to extend it five years to get other concessions.
"I'm glad to see the administration is focusing on our long-term liabilities because sooner or later we're going to collapse under the weight of them," Kane said. "But I think we really missed an opportunity for major structural reform."
SEBAC had no immediate response Tuesday afternoon to Barnes' statements.
the state is not leaner or more efficient - it is chaos. who is he trying to run that jive by? take a look at the job postings, more than ever are posted. why? cuz there was no planning or analysis.
major structural change takes time and planning, neither of which this administration sems to understand. we are lost .....
This is a hilarious statement; "The only way to solve long-term structural liabilities is to pay them off," . Of course, Rhode Island, NJ, Wisconsin and many other states have done the right thing and retroactively changed rules for how soon to retire, how much the workers have to contribute, etc. To pay off on this totally bankrupt system would be like having a mansion in Hartford, that you bought in 2006 for 600K, that is now worth 250K and saying "I wont talk to the bank, I will just keep paying and doubling the payment". Only
Read MoreArt,
I believe that there was alot of that done in the last agreement. They raised the retirement age, reduced the cola and increased the early retirement penalty. This is defered compensation. It should have been invested years ago but the state spent the money elseware.
Connecticut really needs to focus on this issue. Given how volatile pension liabilities can be (http://eng.am/qB3BON), it would be unwise to let this problem linger and fester. You need only look next door to Rhode Island, who finds itself on the precipice of insolvency (http://eng.am/rPYEPZ), to see what danger is inherent in mismanaging public pension funds. A little sacrifice now is much better than a huge cut in retirement funds in the future.
Art and Phil - You're both right. And Jen - The job postings probably *look* "crazier," and the pension and health insurance figures probably look worse, than they actually are and will be. Here's why -
First, regarding the job postings: Even with filling these *posted* jobs the State is *still* expected to be left with at least a few thousand (if not 4,000 or more) *fewer* active employees than it had prior to the last wave of retirements. In order to become more sustainable, the State will probably have to find a way to further reduce its total number
Read MoreWhat a great article. I watched both presentations and understood them, but this clarifies things further. One thing to add in response to artythesmarty, Barnes was saying that something like 2/3rds of the obligations are owed to current retirees. Nothing can be done to renegotiate those terms. As Scott said, what was renegotiated with SEBAC and the locals is in fact sustainable going forward. He's saying there is no alternative but to pay these existing obligations - old debts - off and the sooner we start, the less painful it will be over the long run.
Why would this Governor need to find resolutions when a "surplus" has been created on the backs of the taxpayer? He was willing to pass unconstitutional executive orders (Exec Orders 9 & 10) to allow unionization of childcare and elderly care in order to appease unions who gave up those concessions.
The Unions and the Entitled Ones put him in offfice and the honest taxpayer is stuck with the bill.