pages: CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf, 8
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2010-06-15 | 8 | Mayor Johnson inquired whether projections to 2040 assume the current number of employees and do not assume new employees hired between now and 2040. Mr. Bartel responded projections assume that the work force would be constant and a retired person would be replaced with a new employee; continued the presentation. In response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry, Mr. Bartel stated the 31% public safety rate represents base pay for public safety and does not include overtime; continued the presentation. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the PERS actuarial assumption numbers are overly optimistic. Mr. Bartel responded in the affirmative; stated projections would have less impact on Alameda than other agencies; PERS has guessed low on non-safety enhanced formulas; continued the presentation. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the market value assets include all losses; stated PERS has millions of dollars in losses in Mountain House which has not been factored into the portfolio; PERS has not written off the loss. Mr. Bartel responded that he thinks the loss has been taken into account when projecting to June 30, 2010 but would not know until final information has been provided; stated some losses that happened before June 30, 2009 were not factored in; that he believes the losses are factored into 2011; that he is cautious about information being released; continued the presentation. In response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry, Mr. Bartel stated formulas are put in place by the State Legislature; labor groups pushed for a 3% formula as a cousin to the public safety formula; the belief was that the benefit should not be higher than public safety; the 2.7% at 55 formula is the exact same formula as the public safety 2% at 50. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether a two-tiered defined benefit does not have that big of a financial impact, to which Mr. Bartel responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired what Mr. Bartel is recommending if a two-tier system does not work. Mr. Bartel responded that the City should contribute more than PERS is recommending; stated a lot of his clients wished they were at Alameda's current non-safety benefit formula; the contribution rate is not high compared to most non-safety plans; the rate would be going up but would not be as dramatic; that he is a fan of the 2% at 60 formula and 2% at 55 formula; that he would not recommend decreasing from 2% at 55 to 2% at 60; the 2% at 50 formula gets to 2.7% at 55, which is approximately 10% lower for public safety employees retiring at 55; that he does not know whether benefit level Regular Meeting Alameda City Council June 15, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf |