This bill amends section 121.71, Florida Statutes, by updating the required employer retirement contribution rates for each Florida Retirement System (FRS) membership class and subclass in two parts: the uniform (normal-cost) rates and the additional rates used to address unfunded actuarial liabilities. The changes are set out as percentage rates for both retirement plans and take effect July 1, 2026.
Why it matters: the employer contribution rate is the single lever that determines how much state and local employers must remit to the FRS trust for each payroll dollar. By changing the normal-cost component and the unfunded-liability component separately, the bill reallocates employer payroll costs across membership classes—reducing costs for some employers and raising them for others—while also including a legislative declaration that the act serves an important state interest in maintaining actuarially sound retirement benefits.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill revises s. 121.71(4) (uniform/normal-cost rates) and s. 121.71(5) (rates addressing unfunded actuarial liabilities) to new percentage rates for each FRS membership class and subclass for both retirement plans. It adds those numeric rates into statute and sets the effective date as July 1, 2026.
Who It Affects
State agencies, counties, municipalities, school districts, and other employers participating in the FRS (including those that employ elected officers, judges, special risk employees, senior management, and DROP participants) will see changes to the employer contribution rates they must remit. Actuaries, plan administrators, payroll and budget offices will need to apply the new percentages.
Why It Matters
FRS employer rates determine recurring payroll expenditures and broader budget planning for state and local governments. Changing both the normal-cost and UAL components recalibrates how the system funds benefits and shifts who bears more or less of the plan’s cost, with material impacts on employer budgets and long-term funding metrics.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill directly edits two subsections of the statute that together govern employer contribution percentages for the Florida Retirement System. Subsection (4) sets the uniform rates that reflect the normal cost of benefits for each membership class; subsection (5) sets the additional percentages used to amortize unfunded actuarial liabilities.
The statute currently requires employers to remit the sum of those two components; this bill supplies updated numeric percentages for both components for every listed class and subclass, for both retirement plans, effective July 1, 2026.
Practically, the change alters the total employer contribution a payroll dollar attracts by membership class. For example, adding the updated uniform and UAL percentages yields new combined employer rates such as 11.53% for Regular-class employees and 61.73% for certain elected-officer positions.
Those combined-rate calculations show the bill reduces employer costs for several classes (including Regular, Special Risk, Senior Management, and DROP) while increasing them for others—most notably some elected-officer classifications and certain county-elected positions.Operationally, that produces two immediate tasks for employers and administrators: update payroll and remittance systems to reflect new statutory percentages on July 1, 2026, and incorporate the changed rates into FY2026–27 budget forecasts. Actuarial teams and the FRS administrator will also need to confirm that the updated UAL allocations are consistent with actuarial assumptions, amortization schedules, and statutory funding targets.The bill also contains a legislative declaration that funding FRS benefits in an actuarially sound manner is an important state interest, citing the State Constitution and chapter 112.
That statement does not add procedural requirements but signals the Legislature’s intent that these rate changes are part of maintaining long-term funding discipline.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends s. 121.71(4) and (5) to set new percentage employer contribution rates for every listed FRS membership class and subclass, effective July 1, 2026.
It updates both the uniform (normal-cost) rate and the separate unfunded actuarial liability (UAL) rate; employers pay the sum of those two statutory percentages as their total contribution.
Under the new numbers, the Regular class combined employer contribution falls from 11.97% to 11.53% of gross compensation (a 0.44 percentage-point reduction).
By contrast, the combined employer rate for the Elected Officers' Class (Legislators, Governor, Lt. Governor, Cabinet officers, state attorneys, public defenders) rises from 60.60% to 61.73% of gross compensation (a 1.13 percentage-point increase).
The bill includes a legislative declaration that the act fulfills an important state interest in funding retirement benefits in an actuarially sound manner and takes effect July 1, 2026.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Revises the uniform (normal-cost) employer rates by membership class
This subsection supplies the updated uniform rates the state uses to capture the normal cost of retirement benefits for each membership class and both retirement plans. These percentages function as the baseline employer contribution attributable to current accruals. The practical implication is that every employer’s baseline payroll contribution will change according to the membership mix of its workforce, which directly affects near-term payroll expense and budgeting.
Revises the UAL (unfunded actuarial liability) employer rates by class
This subsection sets the statutory percentages used to amortize the system’s unfunded actuarial liabilities for each class. Because the total employer contribution equals the uniform rate plus the UAL rate, changes here can materially shift who bears legacy pension funding shortfalls. The bill raises UAL percentages for some classes (notably certain elected-officer and county-elected classifications) while lowering them for others, reallocating the amortization burden across employers.
Legislative declaration of important state interest
The Legislature declares that providing actuarially sound and adequate retirement benefits to state and local employees, officers, retirees, and their beneficiaries is a proper state purpose, citing Article X, section 14 of the Florida Constitution and part VII of chapter 112. The declaration signals legislative intent behind the rate revisions but does not prescribe new administrative steps or funding sources.
Effective date
The act takes effect July 1, 2026. Employers and payroll administrators must apply the new statutory percentages beginning in the first pay period on or after that date and reflect the changes in FY2026–27 budget planning.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Finance across all five countries.
Explore Finance in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- State agencies and employers with predominantly Regular-class employees — they generally see a reduction in combined employer contribution rates, which lowers immediate payroll-based pension costs and eases near-term budget pressure.
- School districts and large local employers with similar membership mixes — reduced rates for common employee classes translate into measurable savings on recurring personnel expenditures.
- FRS long-term funding objectives — by legislatively adjusting both normal-cost and UAL allocations, the bill can sharpen the system’s amortization structure and, if actuarial assumptions hold, contribute to clearer funding pathways.
- Payroll and budget offices — receive a fixed statutory schedule of percentages (rather than ad hoc adjustments), which simplifies rate application and short-term forecasting once systems are updated.
Who Bears the Cost
- Employers of certain elected officers and county-elected officials — those classes show increases in the UAL component, producing sizable combined-rate increases that will raise employer payroll contribution burdens.
- Small counties and municipalities with limited budgets — even modest percentage-point increases for high-cost classes can force reallocation of local resources or changes to funding priorities.
- Taxpayers by extension — higher employer contribution obligations typically translate into either increased local taxes, reduced services, or reallocated general-fund spending to cover pension costs.
- FRS administrators and actuarial staff — must absorb additional implementation and monitoring work to ensure the updated UAL allocations comport with actuarial assumptions and funding targets, without new appropriations specified in the bill.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between actuarial correctness and budgetary practicality: the bill advances actuarial funding by recalibrating normal-cost and UAL allocations, which supports long-term solvency, yet it simultaneously shifts immediate payroll burdens unevenly across employers—forcing some to absorb sharp near-term cost increases that can be politically and operationally hard to accommodate.
The bill reallocates employer costs across membership classes without creating transitional relief or separate funding to smooth the change. That produces two immediate implementation issues: payroll systems and employer accounting must be updated precisely by the July 1, 2026 effective date, and employers whose combined rates increase face budget choices (raise revenue, cut spending, or reclassify positions) with no statutory mitigation.
The statute supplies percentages but does not attach explanatory actuarial schedules, so employers and auditors will need to rely on FRS actuarial reports to understand the underlying assumption changes that produced the new rates.
There is also a distributional tension embedded in how UAL amortization is allocated. Using class-specific UAL percentages can better match liability to the cohort that generated it, but it also can produce extreme contribution levels for small or concentrated classes (for example, elected-officer classifications).
That raises questions about equity, affordability, and potential behavioral responses—such as reclassification of workers, changes to hiring for high-cost positions, or pressure to alter benefit structures to reduce future employer exposure. The bill’s declaration that it serves an important state interest frames the change as solvency-focused, but it does not resolve who should bear short-term fiscal strain when solvency-driven rates spike for particular employers.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.