than what is required for TRS. When KERS employees are hired they do not have this same option.
Providing the ORP option for newly-hired KERS employees could become a discussion point during
the Legislative Session. If the Board approves the recommended action for the University to remain
in KERS, if the ORP option is provided for KERS employees, costs could begin to decrease as new
employees choose this option. If such legislation is passed this could be beneficial to the University
but it will take longer for the institution to realize the benefit. This is also beneficial to KERS
employees by providing them with the same option as TRS participants.
➢ Dean Dorton cost estimates are based on information from House Bill 1 passed in 2018 and Senate
Bill 249 passed in 2020. Kentucky Retirement Systems Consultant GRS Retirement Consulting
provided estimates to Murray State on January 28, 2020, based on membership data as of June 30,
2019. GRS has been hired by Kentucky Retirement Systems to provide the actuarial analysis to each
of the state universities. The information provided as a result of the analysis conducted by GRS is
what the University must use to make its decision. The estimates prepared by Dean Dorton utilized
the current employee base – the number of KERS positions in the budget for Fiscal Year 2021. This
number is less than it would have been over the past three years. A conservative estimate is being
presented but may still be lower than actual costs associated with getting out of KERS. This is due to
the fact that relative to the legislation upon which KERS determines the University’s liability, either
the higher of a three-year average or current University payroll could be utilized. For Murray State,
the cost associated with using the three-year average would be higher than that for current payroll.
➢ A recap of the KERS tiers was provided. Tier 1 includes employees who were participants in KERS
prior to September 1, 2008. These individuals have the most seniority in the plan. Tier 2 includes
employees who were participants between September 1, 2008, through December 31, 2013. Tier 3
includes employees who joined the KERS plan on or after January 1, 2014. These are the participants
with the least seniority and number of years in the plan.
➢ KERS provides the University with two options – a hard or soft freeze. With a hard freeze the
University would cease to participate in KERS and be required to take all KERS-participating
employees out of the system. Employees will retain their prior service and contributions to the plan
and can still retire from that plan but no future contributions are made. With a soft freeze the
University would only be required to remove Tier 3 employees from the KERS plan. The soft freeze
option will always be more expensive because those employees with the most seniority remain in the
KERS plan.
➢ Basically seven options are available to the University. These include 1) remaining in KERS, 2)
making a lump sum payment next year to buy the University out of the system (hard or soft freeze
option), 3) issuing taxable bonds to finance and repay those bonds in a 20- or 30-year increment (hard
or soft freeze option) and 4) selecting an installment payment plan (hard or soft freeze option) which
is by far the most expensive option and would be financed through the Kentucky Retirement System
(steep interest rates). Confirmation was provided that legacy liabilities would continue with KERS
under both the hard and soft freeze options. The soft freeze option also includes the risk of the
retirement system changing the amount the University is required to contribute after the decision has
been made to leave the system. With the installment payment plan, rates increase 1.5 percent each
year automatically, meaning this option does not represent a fixed rate like a bond payment that is
based on a schedule.
➢ A House Bill 1 timeline was provided and discussed with the Board.
➢ Employment statistics used in Dean Dorton’s estimates were provided based on a three-year average.
The University’s pre-2019 salary base was $13.6 million (payroll) for KERS employees only. In
December, the salary base decreased to $9.2 million due to KERS employees transitioning onto
Sodexo payroll as a result of outsourcing dining services. In April 2020, the payroll base decreased
again to $7.9 million due to outsourcing to SSC for custodial and grounds services. These actions led
to a weighted average salary base of $10.4 million. In terms of the budget for Fiscal Year 2021, the
payroll base is $6.8 million. The retirement system used a combination of these payrolls over a three-
year average and the result is estimated to be an approximate $10.4 million salary base. When
compared to the current year payroll base of $6.8 million, this resulted in a GRS estimate based on an
$11.3 million salary base. Salary bases are important because the recommendation being made is
predicated on remaining in KERS with the University’s contribution being computed on a percentage
of salary or payroll. Prior to 2019 there were 589 individuals participating in the KERS Non-
Hazardous plan and for the current budget cycle that number is 232 employees (61 percent decrease
in the number of positions where the University is contributing 49.47 percent to the KERS Non-
Hazardous plan). A breakdown of employees in the various tiers was also provided and this data is
important when considering the hard or soft freeze options.
➢ A Schedule of Unknowns/Risks/Knowns was presented. Key points included that if the University
decides to remain in KERS, the employer contribution rates on payrolls may significantly increase
over the next 30 years. If the University decides to leave KERS and finance through the retirement
system, the true cost will not be known at the time the decision must be made. If the University
decides to leave KERS and finance with bonds there is also an associated risk, including whether the
market is able to provide adequate lenders for the size of the issue that would be required for this
purpose (plus interest rates at the time of the bond issuance). As of today, if the University chooses to
cease participation in KERS it does not have authority to sell bonds and would have to obtain
approval from the General Assembly. The University’s bond rating would need to be determined and