Laserfiche WebLink
John Bartel, Bartel Associates, gave a PowerPoint presentation and said there are differences between <br /> the police and fire plans, in that the police plan is in a risk pool and the fire plan is stand-alone. He <br /> presented a snapshot of demographic information for the fire plan and said in 1994, Pleasanton Fire <br /> was by itself before the LPFD was established and the department had a relatively low number of <br /> employees which has grown to 118. <br /> Councilmember McGovern questioned and confirmed that since 2009; approximately 4 positions have <br /> been lost due to freezing or elimination. Mr. Fialho explained that everyone included in this pension <br /> plan is segregated as fire employees, which include the Chief, Deputy Chiefs, and the Fire Marshal. <br /> Those numbers in the slide are employees represented by the union and this number includes those <br /> employees as well as 8 management positions. The City has implemented a number of freezes <br /> throughout the organization which is extended to the Pleasanton side of the fire organization, so the <br /> overall staffing count has decreased over the years. <br /> Councilmember McGovern asked if the number has been calibrated for 2011. Mr. Bartel said this will be <br /> shown in upcoming slides. CaIPERS has estimated what this number is, but they will not come out with <br /> the June 30, 2011 valuation until October 2012. Later this month, the City should get the 2010 <br /> information but there is a 2-year lag from the valuation date and when the contribution is affected and a <br /> 15-month lag from the valuation date and when information is gathered to when CaIPERS actually <br /> completes the report. <br /> Mr. Fialho pointed out that whether the City looks at this from an actuarial or market perspective, half of <br /> the perspective is Livermore's share of the plan and the other half is shared by the City of Pleasanton. <br /> Councilmember McGovern questioned and confirmed that in 2011 the City reached $157.8 million <br /> liability, and the actuarial unfunded liability will be about $38 million or a market unfunded liability of just <br /> over $50 million. Mr. Bartel stated that the market has improved since 2009, but there is still a large gap <br /> between that liability and the market value of assets. <br /> Mayor Hosterman referred to the Little Hoover Commission report and confirmed that this was the <br /> relationship between return on investment of 7.75% with the $240 billion statewide liability. Mr. Bartel <br /> said CaIPERS made a change in their asset smoothing method as part of the 2009 valuation that <br /> reduced the contribution rate from 38.1% to 31.9%. This change moved into the future more of the <br /> investment losses than they would have otherwise done, or deferred them to future years. The City will <br /> not have to pay for those if investment return is good. The City will have to pay for those gradually over <br /> time if investment return is other than good. The reason this is an important topic is that CaIPERS' <br /> deferral results in lower contribution rates but CaIPERS rates in the future are a function of what <br /> investment return will be and what contribution rate the City will make. <br /> Councilmember McGovern voiced concern because the debt is being passed onto future generations <br /> as well as that risk. CaIPERS has made some risky decisions and losses and the City is passing those <br /> losses into the future which means it could impact services in the long run if the smoothing does not <br /> work out. <br /> Mayor Hosterman felt the City needs to figure out how to start paying down this amount while staying in <br /> front of the fluctuating return over the coming years. Mr. Bartel said if the City can do this the <br /> calculations are not hard to do. It is getting to agreement and putting it into the budget. He has a small <br /> number of clients who take the position that they are not going to make that minimum payment which <br /> can make the City's budget smoother because you set it at a higher rate and only change it when <br /> something exciting happens, like a particularly downturn or particularly good upturn in the market. He <br /> actually thinks that from a budget standpoint, it is more painful but it is easier to do once it is in there <br /> because it is more stable. <br /> City Council Minutes Page 4 of 5 October 4, 2011 <br />