FY2022 source-reconciled actuarial data · Public Plans Database

Pittsburgh Municipal

Everything the Public Plans Database tracks for Pittsburgh Municipal: funded ratio, unfunded liability, membership, and 23 years of financial history, compiled by Boston College CRR and checked against actuarial valuations.

Browse all states → How we grade plans

By · · Pennsylvania · Municipal Plan · Data through FY2022

Funded Ratio: 98.6% (Healthy) Pittsburgh Municipal funded ratio compared to national public pension benchmark. FUNDED RATIO 98.6% Healthy Nat'l avg 75.49869791666667% 0% 60 70 80 100% Healthy > 80% · At-risk 70-80% · Critical < 60%
Pittsburgh Municipal funded ratio is 98.6 percent, classified as Healthy. National public-pension benchmark is 75.49869791666667 percent.
Actuarial funded ratio
98.6%
Health grade
CReported funded ratio below full funding
Actuarial assets
$3.03B
Members
N/A

According to the Public Plans Database, compiled by the Boston College Center for Retirement Research, Pittsburgh Municipal is one of 197 public pension plans tracked nationwide. The plan card reports source-reconciled actuarial figures through FY2022; the multi-year table includes only years whose reported ratio ties to its actuarial dollars. This site’s database copy was last loaded in July 2026. See our methodology for the full source and update cadence.

Recovering funded-ratio path

Pittsburgh Municipal gained 55.4 points from FY2002 (43.2%) to FY2022 (98.6%) on the reconciled series.

Pittsburgh Municipal on a recovering funded path

According to the Public Plans Database, Pittsburgh Municipal gained 55.4 points on the reconciled series from FY2002 to FY2022, and now reports 98.6% (grade C).

98.6%
Funded · #135 of 192
C
Health grade
$44M
Actuarial unfunded liability
+55.4pp
FY2002→FY2022
Subscribe to funded-ratio changes (RSS)

Actuarial Unfunded Liability

$44M

Modest unfunded liability · source-reported UAAL

Total Members

N/A

active + retired + vested

1-Year Return

9.0%

Above assumed rate · net investment return

1.9pp vs 5-yr avg

5-Year Avg Return

7.1%

Above assumed rate · annualized, net of fees

B-
Composite Health Score
68/100
Pittsburgh Municipal

Transparent derived index from public pension-plan filings, not an official rating. A 4-dimension composite (funded ratio, contribution discipline, 5-year investment return, unfunded burden), each scored against this dataset's own percentile distribution across 197 reporting plans. Not the same as the plan's headline funded-ratio grade above. See the exact dimensions, weights, and formula.

Funded Ratio A+
98.6%
Actuarial assets as a share of liabilities
Contribution Discipline N/A
N/A
Share of the actuarially required contribution actually paid
Investment Returns F
7.1%
5-year annualized investment return
Unfunded Burden B
12.9%
Unfunded liability as a share of total obligations
How this score is calculated (benchmark table)
Dimension P10 P25 P50 P75 P90 Weight
Funded ratio (higher = better) 57.6% 67.2% 75.0% 87.0% 97.6% 0.35
Contribution discipline (ARC) (higher = better) 88.4% 100.0% 100.0% 104.1% 122.1% 0.25
5yr investment return (higher = better) 6.4% 7.5% 8.3% 9.1% 9.9% 0.20
Unfunded burden (lower = better) 2.0% 12.7% 25.0% 33.1% 42.4% 0.20

Percentiles computed across all 197 plans in this database with a reported value for that metric (2026-09-09). A dimension a plan does not report drops out of its composite, and that weight redistributes across the dimensions it does report, so thin reporting never silently lowers a score relative to a fully-reported peer.

Investment Policy Mix

Asset Allocation: 55% equity, 25% fixed income, 17% alternatives Pittsburgh Municipal investment policy mix as reported in its CAFR and actuarial valuation. ASSET ALLOCATION $298M market assets · CAFR / actuarial valuation 55% 25% 17% Equity 55.0% Fixed Inc. 25.0% Alternatives 17.0% Cash 3.0% Investment Stance: Growth-Tilted · Equity + Alts 72%
Pittsburgh Municipal asset allocation: 55% equity, 25% fixed income, 17% alternatives, 3% cash. Investment stance: Growth-Tilted.

Funded ratio, 2002 to 2022

Assets as a share of the benefits already promised, one point per reported year. Up 55.4 points across the series. This is the multi-year table's series, so its last point can be a later year than the plan card above, which reports the plan's own latest valuation.

40%60%80%100%120% 20022004200620082010201220142016201820202022 98.6%

What changed, FY2020 to FY2022

32.2 pts funded ratio Liability re-measured

Pittsburgh Municipal's funded ratio rose 32.2 points from FY2020 to FY2022, but the reported accrued liability rose 612.2% over the same period. A change of that size in one year reflects a revised actuarial measurement of what the plan owes rather than a swing in how well it is funded. Assets account for +635.6 of the 32.2 points; the liability re-measurement accounts for the rest.

Funded ratio
66.4% → 98.6%
Actuarial assets
$287M → $3.03B (+957.2%)
Accrued liability
$432M → $3.07B (+612.2%)
Where the 32.2-point move came from
Assets
+635.6 pts
Accrued liability
-603.4 pts

Accrued liability is the source-reported value for benefits already promised. The two contributions are the move the ratio would have made on the prior year’s liability (assets) and the remainder (liability); they sum to the total by construction. Both years shown provide source-reconciled actuarial assets and liability, so neither figure rests on a ratio published on its own. Source: Public Plans Database (Boston College CRR / NASRA), loaded July 2026. See our funding-change board for how this plan’s move compares with the rest of the dataset.

Historical Actuarial Funding

Year Actuarial Ratio
2022 98.6%
2020 66.4%
2018 61.9%
2016 60.3%
2014 60.8%
2012 62.4%
2010 46.9%
2008 43.1%
2006 49.6%
2004 46.9%
2002 43.2%

What the Data Says About Pittsburgh Municipal

Pittsburgh Municipal is one of the more fully funded plans in the Public Plans Database, 23 points above the 75.5% national average across tracked plans. A 5-year average investment return of 7.1% factors into the plan's overall trajectory.

For Pennsylvania taxpayers and plan members, the $44M source-reported actuarial unfunded liability is the shortfall this plan must close over time.

Where this data comes from + how funding gaps get resolved

These figures come from the Public Plans Database, a collaboration between the Boston College Center for Retirement Research and NASRA that compiles them from each plan's Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs) and actuarial valuations. The relationship between contribution adequacy and investment performance determines whether an unfunded liability narrows or expands year over year, and the gap itself is typically closed through some combination of higher contributions, investment returns, or benefit modifications. See our methodology for how public-pension funding differs from ERISA-backed private plans, and our disclaimer below before acting on this data.

Plan Details

Plan Type
Municipal
State
Pennsylvania
Market Assets
$298M
Source: Public Plans Database (PPD)
Boston College CRR / NASRA

Plans With a Similar Funded Ratio

The closest plans nationwide to Pittsburgh Municipal's 68.7% funded ratio.

Showing 5 of 191 plans nationwide with a reported funded ratio.

Other Pennsylvania Plans

All Pennsylvania plans →

Read with this plan

Every figure on PlainPension is rendered directly from the Public Plans Database (Boston College Center for Retirement Research), no number is typed in by an editor. Pittsburgh Municipal ranks #135 of 192 by funded ratio. This information is for informational purposes only and does not constitute professional advice, consult a qualified professional before acting on it. See our editorial standards & corrections policy, the typed corrections pathway, the methodology behind these numbers, or report a data error. Data current as of July 2026.