PERAC Executive Director & Chairman Bill Keefe called the meeting to order (remotely via Zoom) at 11:05 AM. Mr. Keefe explained that, because the meeting was remote, all motions made during the meeting would be voted on by roll call, and the meeting would be recorded.
Special COLA Commission members in attendance at the Zoom meeting included State Senator Michael Brady, MTRS Executive Director Emerita Erika Glaster, PERAC Executive Director Bill Keefe, State Retirement Board Executive Director Kathryn Kougias, Executive Office of Administration and Finance Assistant Budget Director Amelia Marceau, Representative Dan Ryan, and President of Mass. Retirees Frank Valeri.
PERAC Staff, including First Deputy Executive Director Caroline Carcia, Assistant Deputy Director Patrick Charles, Actuary John Boorack, Deputy Compliance Manager Sarita Yee, and Investment Analyst Anna Huang, were present at the Zoom meeting to provide technical expertise and support to the Commission members.
Other attendees at the Zoom meeting: Tobias T. Cowans (Sen. Brady’s Ofc.), Donna LoConte (Sen. Brady’s Ofc.), Janey Frank, Seth Gitell (PRIM), Tom Bonarrigo (Mass. Retirees).
Minutes Approval
Commission member Senator Frank Valeri motioned to approve the minutes from the September 18, 2025, meeting. Emerita Erika Glaster seconded the motion, and a vote was taken:
Erika Glaster YES, Bill Keefe YES, Kathryn Kougias YES, Amelia Marceau YES, Dan Ryan YES, Frank Valeri YES. The minutes were adopted.
Actuarial Analysis Presentation
Actuary John Boorack (PERAC) provided two additional enhanced COLA proposals for retirees. These proposals were added to a broader set of COLA options previously discussed throughout the year.
Correction Noted
A typo was noted on page 1, # 2: the years of retirement should be 10-15 for the first group, 15-20 for the second group, and 20+ for the third group.
- Proposal #1: Lower COLA Increases
Eligibility Criteria:
- Retirees with at least 20 years of service
- At least 10 years retired
- Current benefit is less than 80% of the average salary (based on Jan 1, 2024, actuarial valuation)
COLA Increases:
- $60/year for 10–15 years retired
- $120/year for 15–20 years retired
- $240/year for 20+ years retired
Cost Estimates:
- State Retirement System: $180.7 million
- Teachers' Retirement System: $286.8 million
- Total Impact: $467.4 million
Amortization Plan:
- Over 10 years, starting Jan 1, 2025
- First-year cost: $56.7 million
- Annual increase: 4%
- If delayed to Jan 1, 2026: initial cost increases by 7%, then 4% annually
- Proposal #2: Higher COLA Increases
Same eligibility criteria as Proposal #1
COLA Increases:
- $100/year for 10–15 years retired
- $200/year for 15–20 years retired
- $300/year for 20+ years retired
Cost Estimates:
- State Retirement System: $245.7 million
- Teachers' Retirement System: $393.8 million
- Total Impact: $639.5 million
Amortization Plan:
- Over 10 years, starting Jan 1, 2025
- First-year cost: $77.5 million
- Annual increase: 4%
Additional Notes
- All previously discussed COLA proposals from earlier meetings are included for comparison.
- Increased costs for each proposal are highlighted in bold for clarity.
At the conclusion of his presentation, Mr. Boorack invited questions regarding the updated COLA proposals and their comparisons.
Ms. Glaster asked whether the cost estimates account for both current retirees and those who will reach the specified retirement thresholds in the future.
Mr. Boorack clarified that the cost estimates presented apply only to current retirees.
Ms. Glaster sought clarification on whether, based on the criteria presented, only individuals retired as of today would be eligible, excluding future retirees. She asked if this means the cost estimates apply to a finite population.
Mr. Boorack affirmed that that interpretation was correct.
Mr. Valeri asked whether the effective date of the proposal would determine if the eligible retiree population remained finite or expanded over time. He further inquired if setting the effective date just before a significant inflationary period—such as January 1, 2021—would make all retirees before that date eligible, thereby increasing the overall cost beyond the current estimates.
Mr. Boorack confirmed that expanding eligibility for the enhancement would increase costs.
Mr. Valeri asked whether, given the current figures, the $639 million cost for the $100/$200/$300 COLA proposal represents approximately one-third of the estimated $2,000 COLA base. He further questioned whether implementing a full $2,000 COLA would cause an unfunded cost increase of roughly $1.6 billion.
Mr. Boorack responded that, although he did not have the exact figures on hand, he believed the $639 million cost estimate was approximately equivalent to a $1,000 increase in the COLA base, representing about half the cost of a $2,000 increase, and confirmed that expanding eligibility would further increase the overall cost.
Mr. Valeri referenced earlier cost estimates ranging from 0.3 to 0.6 for the 2000s and noted that the current $1,000 base increase appears significantly different. He acknowledged the cost analysis provided and asked whether any demographic data was available to support the estimates. He speculated that applying a 10-year retirement window and using 80% of average salary could affect nearly half of the state's retirement population, though he was uncertain about its effect on teachers.
Mr. Boorack confirmed that demographic data is available, although he did not have it on hand.
Ms. Glaster asked whether an individual who has been retired for 10 years at the time of the bill’s passage—and would therefore receive a $60 enhancement—would see an increase in their benefit once they reach 15 years retired.
Mr. Boorack confirmed that this is correct.
Mr. Valeri questioned the noticeable decrease in benefit amounts for the 15 to 20-year retiree group across both scenarios. He referenced figures showing declines from 82 to 55 and from 107 to 53, noting that these represent significant declines. While he acknowledged that the reduction might be favorable from a cost perspective, he sought clarification on the rationale behind the sharp drop.
Mr. Boorack suggested that the noticeable drop in figures for the 15 to 20-year retiree group may be due to a significantly smaller number of individuals in that category within the state system.
Mr. Valeri remarked that the goal is to identify a balanced solution and expressed that the discussion is moving in that direction.
Ms. Glaster followed up on an earlier point raised by Mr. Valeri, asking whether focusing on individuals who retired before the inflationary period would reduce the number of people eligible for the enhancement.
Mr. Valeri explained that eligibility depends on how the statute is constructed. He noted that the current cost analysis appears to be based on individuals who retired before July 1, 2016, and have at least 10 years of retirement service as of July of next year. He added that if eligibility were extended to those who retired before January 1, 2021, it would significantly expand the eligible population and increase the overall cost.
Mr. Boorack reminded the group that the analysis is based on valuation data as of January 1, 2024.
Mr. Valeri asked Mr. Boorack to explain the reasoning.
Mr. Boorack explained that the initial analyses prepared for the Commission were completed before January 1, 2025 state valuation, and were used for consistency purposes.
Mr. Valeri asked whether the January 1, 2025, valuation had been completed.
Mr. Boorack confirmed it had been completed and was presented at the September Commission meeting.
Mr. Valeri thanked Mr. Boorack for his excellent work.
The Chair asked if there were any further questions or discussion.
Mr. Valeri asked Mr. Boorack what impact removing the minimum benefit would have on the numbers. He acknowledged it would increase the cost but asked for a rough estimate of the increase.
The Chair asked whether the reference was to the salary threshold.
Mr. Valeri referred to the scenario showing 25 years of service and 10 years of retirement with no minimum benefit. He expressed interest in understanding how this approach would affect overall numbers.
Mr. Boorack responded that he did not have an estimate of the potential impact but noted that removing the minimum benefit would likely increase costs.
The Chair asked if there were any further questions or discussion on the material presented.
Discussion on COLA Commission Extension and Next Steps
Hearing none, the Chair briefly addressed the COLA Commission extension. The extension was included in the House version of the supplemental budget, which passed, and proposed moving the reporting deadline to December 31st. However, the Senate Ways and Means version released yesterday did not include the extension. The Chair noted that both he and Mr. Valeri had reached out to Senator Creighton and Senator Brady’s office to request an amendment aligning with the House language. The deadline to file amendments is today at 5 PM.
The Chair added that, even with the extension, the Commission would be about two months from the new deadline. He expressed hope that the group could begin to coalesce around a recommended proposal. He noted that additional time would be needed to finalize and present the report.
Logistical Issues
The Chair suggested scheduling the next meeting and proposed several options, including the week of November 3rd (noting Election Day on Tuesday the 4th), November 6th, the week of November 10th (with Veterans Day on Tuesday the 11th and potential vacation days), or the week of November 17th. He invited members to share their availability and preferences.
The Chair noted the need to schedule at least one more meeting, possibly more, and expressed a preference to avoid requesting a third extension to the reporting deadline.
The Chair proposed November 6th as the next meeting date, noting general agreement among present members.
Report Planning and Proposal Development
The Chair noted that no presentation is currently planned for Mr. Boorack. He indicated that the focus for the next meeting would likely be the agenda, recommendations, and, ideally, a proposal—unless there are additional requests for Mr. Boorack at this time.
Mr. Valeri expressed interest in revisiting the two previously discussed scenarios, but without applying the benefit level. He added that unless others had additional suggestions, the group was approaching a potential solution. He emphasized the importance of addressing the needs of the most vulnerable and noted that the option under consideration appeared to be less costly than a COLA-based increase.
Ms. Glaster noted that to meet the December report deadline, a draft report should be available by the next meeting.
The Chair noted that a skeleton outline of the report is being developed, including the meeting minutes, the enabling statute, the names of commission members, meeting dates, and various supporting materials. Once a proposal is finalized, it will be incorporated into the report, which will be completed as quickly as possible. The Chair emphasized the importance of moving toward a recommendation and a proposal that the Commission can vote on, aside from the outstanding request for Mr. Boorack, which may be addressed at the next meeting.
Mr. Valeri noted that a draft had been posted on the website, which he and Ms. Glaster had previously forwarded. He agreed that the Commission could reach consensus on the enhanced COLA proposal and how to address the cost of the COLA base increase. He suggested that PERAC staff, including Patrick and others, could help coordinate and draft the proposal. Mr. Valeri emphasized the need for the Commission to vote on a definitive proposal regarding both enhanced COLA and the COLA-based funding.
Ms. Glaster offered to assist with drafting the report and clarified that she did not expect the Chair and his team to complete it on their own.
The Chair stated that materials would be circulated, but emphasized that the group would take the lead in initiating the work.
Ms. Glaster noted that identifying a single proposal to coalesce around is challenging, as it depends on budget constraints and what members are comfortable supporting. She suggested that the report should lay out the key ideas and present a narrowed set of options for consideration.
The Chair emphasized that the report remains a blank slate and could include multiple options. He noted that the guiding principles reflect the Commission’s shared priorities, particularly the need to support retirees who have been retired the longest and may be feeling the financial strain more acutely. He reiterated that the Commission had previously voted to use excess investment gains as the preferred funding mechanism. The Chair suggested revisiting the guiding principles and exploring whether further recommendations should be proposed.
Mr. Valeri suggested that the Commission propose a range of enhanced benefit options, along with potential allocations of investment gains for future COLA-based increases. He noted that these could be included in the report and used as the basis for drafting a proposal.
Ms. Glaster and the Chair agreed that the report could include a range of options and benefit levels for consideration.
Mr. Valeri further suggested that including a range of options would provide flexibility and insight into the associated costs. He emphasized that the appropriations involved in pension funding differ significantly from typical annual budget appropriations. Unlike standard fiscal year appropriations used to cover operating expenses, these appropriations—such as $77.5 million or $56.7 million—are largely invested, with only a fraction representing annualized costs. He highlighted that approximately 60% of revenue is generated through investment gains, underscoring the importance of conveying to decision-makers that pension funding operates differently from traditional budget processes. While acknowledging potential concerns about costs, he stressed that pension funding should be viewed through a long-term investment lens.
The Chair agreed that the report should include the projected cost of any proposal and suggested that spelling out the actual annual appropriation figures would help make the financial impact appear more realistic and less daunting.
Mr. Valeri suggested referencing annual studies or reports that demonstrate the impact of investment gains on large systems. He noted that such references would lend credibility to the report's points.
As the discussion ended and members shared final comments, the Chair suggested that a motion to adjourn be made.
Commission member Kathryn Kougias motioned to adjourn the meeting. Emerita Erika Glaster seconded the motion, and a vote was taken:
Erika Glaster YES, Bill Keefe YES, Kathryn Kougias YES, Amelia Marceau YES, Dan Ryan YES, Frank Valeri YES. The meeting was adjourned at 11:32 AM.
Special Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) Commission Meeting Documents
Actuarial Update COLA Commission 10-21-25.pdf
COLA Commission 10_21_2025 agenda__.docx
September 18 (COLA) Commission Meeting Minutes FINAL.docx
Approved,
Bill Keefe, Chairman
Patrick M. Charles, Designee
| Date published: | November 7, 2025 |
|---|