CCMIN102103 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Brozosky used the example of retirement benefits. He believed that if an employee works for cities for 30 years, they would receive 80 percent of their salary for the remainder of the employee's life. Ms. McKeehan stated that was not always the case. She noted that it would be hue only if the person stayed employed with the City of Pleusanton or another organization that offers the same retirement benefit. Mr. Brozosky made the observation that the retirement formula is not a straight- line formula. Ms. McKeehen concurred with Mr. Bmzosky. She pointed out that the PERS formula is not a straight average; rather it is an actuarial evaluation using an employee's life span. She noted that 2.7 percent could not be multiplied out for most of the employees in the organization, as most employees have a combination of service, which retirement benefits are not transferable. It is only cumulative in the sense that PERS would count five years in another organization, but even if that organization goes to the same retirement system that Pleasanton has, those years would not count as years at 2.7. It would be whatever retirement system was in place at the time an employee was employed. Mr. Bmzosky provided an example of a police or fire employee who worked for the City for a period of 30 years. Upon retirement, he believed they would make about 90 percent of their salary. Based on the changes the Governor approved in the last few years, Ms. McKeehan said that for public safety employees, they would realize 90 percent of their salary when retiring at~er 30 years or so. She pointed out that just about every city in the State of California changed to 3 percent at 50 for public safety employees. She believed that if the City of Pleasanton wanted to continue to attract police and fire employees, it needed to provide this benefit. In response to an inquiry by Mr. Brozosky, Ms. McKeehan verified the City was not required to go to the 3 percent at 50 retirement system with PERS. Pleasanton, however, wanted to be competitive. She pointed out that today, more than 95 percent of California cities have this retirement benefit. Mr. Bmzosky realized that public safety employees are different, and noted that the majority do not realize that the actuarial table for them is very short. In terms of what the City pays PERS for police and fire retirement, which is a higher benefit, he noted the outcome of the cost to the City is much less than what is paid for general employees. Ms. Ayala inquired as to whether there had been any discussion at the State level regarding renegotiating the 3 percent at 50 retirement system. Pleasant City Council 20 10/21/03 Minutes