Reinstating former employer contributions for JRS, HPORS, SRS, GWPORS
HB 85 revises Montana law governing employer contribution rates for several state retirement systems: the Judges’ Retirement System (JRS), the Highway Patrol Officers’ Retirement System (HPORS), the Sheriffs’ Retirement System (SRS), and the Game Wardens’ and Peace Officers’ Retirement System (GWPORS). The bill updates multiple statutes to restore or reset contribution formulas, move these plans to actuarially determined employer contribution structures, and in the case of the judges’ system, establish a 0% employer contribution rate for the base employer contribution while continuing to address funding through other appropriated sources and actuarial mechanisms.
The bill also makes conforming changes to related funding and tax-levy provisions, including references to actuarial soundness, amortization schedules for unfunded liabilities, and county levy authority tied to retirement contributions. It includes appropriations from the general fund for the Montana Highway Patrol employer contribution and sets effective dates, including retroactive applicability for certain contribution-rate provisions. Overall, the measure is a retirement-system financing bill focused on how the state and participating employers pay for pension obligations rather than on benefit changes for members.
HB 85 amends Montana Code Annotated sections affecting property-tax levy calculations and the funding rules for state retirement systems, especially the judges’, highway patrol officers’, sheriffs’, and game wardens’/peace officers’ plans. It changes employer contribution rates, codifies actuarial funding methods for normal cost and unfunded liabilities, and adjusts statutory appropriation language and county levy authority where retirement costs are involved. The bill also appropriates general fund dollars for the Department of Justice to cover the highway patrol employer contribution, and it applies some provisions retroactively to July 1, 2023, while other sections take effect on passage or July 1, 2025.
The bill appears to have broad overall support, especially in the House, where it passed committee and floor votes by comfortable margins. The Senate process was more divided, with narrower committee and floor votes, suggesting some concern about the fiscal effects or the policy approach even though the bill ultimately advanced and was enacted. The final legislative history indicates the measure was approved and assigned a chapter number, reflecting successful passage despite some opposition.
The main points of contention appear to be fiscal and structural: how much of the retirement systems’ costs should be borne by the state, employers, counties, or dedicated revenue sources, and whether the bill’s contribution-rate changes are the right way to restore actuarial balance. The judges’ retirement system provisions, including the 0% employer contribution rate and the use of appropriations and special revenue sources, are likely to have drawn scrutiny because they depart from ordinary employer funding patterns. The Senate’s closer votes, especially on concurrence and third reading, suggest some lawmakers were uneasy about the cost, the retroactive application, or the complexity of the funding changes.