Tag: CalSTRS

What’s Next for California’s Public Pensions?

Last week, the California Supreme Court issued an important ruling regarding public pensions. The case, CalFire Local 2881 v. CalPERS, was one of several lawsuits challenging the major 2013 pension reform law that was championed by then-Governor Brown. By upholding the changes contained in the law, the court’s decision answered one important question about the law’s legality. But it also left a much larger one unanswered: whether state or local governments will be able to alter some pension provisions during a future economic downturn.

Pensions present a significant challenge for California. The largest funds at the pension systems for California’s public employees (CalPERS) and state teachers (CalSTRS) have reported gaps of more than $138.9 billion and $107.3 billion, respectively, between their estimated obligations to retirees and the current value of their assets.

Closing those gaps will require larger payments from state and local governments, squeezing out dollars that would otherwise be used for programs and services. Employer contributions have already increased substantially in recent years. For example, public agency contributions into CalPERS increased from $4.19 billion to $6.71 billion from 2013 to 2017. And K–14 district contributions into CalSTRS have increased even more sharply, from $2.27 billion to $6.72 billion between 2013 and 2019. Indeed, the need to meet pension obligations was one of the financial pressures factoring into both the Los Angeles and Oakland teacher strikes.

CALPERS Employer Contributions Are Increasing with Public Agencies Paying the Largest Share

CALSTRS Employer Contributions Are Growing, with K-12 District Contributions Expected to Continue Rising

Prior to the end of his final term, Governor Brown anticipated that the court would rule broadly, giving future governors “the option of considering pension cutbacks for the first time in a long time.” Such flexibility would be helpful to policymakers trying to balance budgets should a future recession lead to a drop in revenues.

But the court’s ruling was far more narrow, saying that a pension provision provided by the legislature could later be removed. The provision in question—referred to as airtime—allowed public employees to “purchase” additional years of service for their pension calculations. By paying more into the system, someone with 15 years of service could have their pension calculated as if they had worked 20 years. It turned out this was costing more in future pension payouts than the value paid by the employee for the added years. The legislature ended the practice in 2013 and the court decision affirmed it could do that.

The court went on to say that since this specific benefit was not a “core pension right,” it was not part of an implicit contract with the employee. Treating certain pension benefits as a protected contract is part of a long-standing legal precedent known as the California Rule—a precedent that the court explicitly did not address.

So, what happens now? Two upcoming cases before the court, concerning employees from Alameda and Marin Counties, involve another provision of the 2013 reform that excludes certain kinds of pay (e.g., pay for on-call or standby work) from an employee’s pension calculation. Similar to the CalFire Local 2881 case, the unions maintain that how pay is calculated is part of the pension contract and cannot be changed.

Given the clear distinction the court just made between the airtime provision and the California Rule, it very well might take the same approach regarding the calculation of pay—ruling narrowly on the provision but leaving the bigger question untouched. If that happens, it would affirm the 2013 reform but fall far short of Brown’s vision of being able to reduce pensions outright as part of an effort to balance the budget.

Will the Governor’s Budget Reduce the Heat on School Districts?

Last week Los Angeles district leaders reached a deal with public school teachers to end the city’s first teachers’ strike in 30 years, agreeing to higher teacher salaries, smaller class sizes, and more support staff. The strike was the culmination of long-brewing tensions over the amount and allocation of funds in California’s largest school district. Many other districts in the state are facing similar challenges, as the demand for resources grows faster than the available dollars.

Earlier this month, the governor’s first budget proposal acknowledged some of these broader difficulties. The 2019–20 spending plan proposes $3 billion in one-time payment to CalSTRS, the main teachers’ retirement system, on behalf of schools (separate from the General Fund K–12 spending determined by Proposition 98). The proposal also includes $1.1 billion to pay down a portion of the state’s share of the estimated CalSTRS liability.

The proposed $3 billion CalSTRS payment could take some financial pressure off school districts. Funding for schools is determined by two main formulas. First, total statewide funding is determined by applying a formula (Proposition 98) to the expected revenue from state and local property taxes. Then, another formula (the Local Control Funding Formula) is used to determine the bulk of the dollars available to individual school districts.

Distributing resources in this manner means local school districts, even one as large as Los Angeles, have limited control over the total amount of dollars they have to work with. But the demand for those dollars is constantly going up as districts find themselves paying more—overall and in particular areas such as special education services, health care premiums, and pensions. Pensions are especially challenging, as legislation passed in 2014 mandated that school districts’ share of teacher pension contributions would rise from 8% (2013) of their teacher payrolls to 19% by 2020. This increase will drive annual pension contributions to more than $1,000 per student in most local school districts.

How much relief might the governor’s proposed payment provide? The answer is some, but not much. The governor’s budget document states that the payment “will reduce the out-year contribution rate by half a percentage point.” Given that number, the expected relief amounts to an annual savings of around $25 per student. In large districts such as Los Angeles, this adds up to tens of millions of dollars annually, but districts with lower enrollment numbers will see more modest financial gains.

The CalSTRS payment proposal is a departure from prior state budgets. First, it represents an acknowledgment that, despite recent increases in total education spending, school districts still face fiscal challenges. Second, it proposes to direct non–Proposition 98 funds, making it a de facto increase in total K–12 resources. School district administrators are likely to appreciate both. However, the proposal still needs the legislature’s approval, and it’s not clear whether it would significantly relieve fiscal pressures on districts.

Whether the one-time CalSTRS payment represents a shift in future policy remains to be seen. If it is in fact only a one-time payment, the impact on the resources available to schools will be welcome but modest. It may, however, signal a different approach to education funding in the long run—something that would be worth watching.