Reducing Pension And Retiree Health Benefit Costs
|
|
- Dwayne Cook
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Reducing Pension And Retiree Health Benefit Costs Thursday, October 1, 2015 General Session; 4:15 5:30 p.m. Jack W. Hughes, Liebert Cassidy Whitmore DISCLAIMER: These materials are not offered as or intended to be legal advice. Readers should seek the advice of an attorney when confronted with legal issues. Attorneys should perform an independent evaluation of the issues raised in these materials. Copyright 2015, League of California Cities. All rights reserved. This paper, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced in any form without express written permission from the League of California Cities. For further information, contact the League of California Cities at 1400 K Street, 4 th Floor, Sacramento, CA Telephone: (916) League of California Cities 2015 Annual Conference, City Attorneys Track San José Convention Center
2 Notes: League of California Cities 2015 Annual Conference, City Attorneys Track San José Convention Center
3 Reducing Retirement and Health Benefit Costs and Analyzing Vested Rights I. Introduction The Public Employees Pension Reform Act of 2013 ( PEPRA ) became effective on January 1, While PEPRA may eventually reduce long-term retirement costs, it will take many years before the savings are realized and actually felt by public agencies. Much of the savings from PEPRA are also being overshadowed by increasing retirement costs based on the California Public Employees Retirement System s ( CalPERS ) changes to smoothing and amortization policies and skyrocketing health care costs. Many public agencies are still looking for ways to reduce and control their future unfunded liabilities and expenditures. The paper will discuss cost savings methods such as reducing or eliminating the amount of the employee contribution paid by the employer, requiring employees to pay a portion of the employer s share through cost sharing, and tiering benefits. Recent trends in case law has also made it increasingly likely that an agency can modify or reduce employee and retiree health benefits without impairing vested contractual rights. Specifically, recent published and unpublished court decisions have consistently held that benefits are not vested in nearly every case that comes before them. These decisions have increased the likelihood that agencies can successfully alter employee and retiree health and retirement benefits to reduce expenses without impairing vested rights. For example, employers may be able to require employees and retirees to pay a larger portion of their health care premiums or switch to less expensive plans. However, employers must analyze documents granting employee benefits to determine whether employees or retirees have a vested right to continue receiving a particular benefit. II. Pension Reform and Retirement Contribution Savings A. Public Employees Pension Reform Act and Cost Savings 1 Gov. Code, 7522 et seq.
4 Most public agencies have been living with PEPRA for nearly three years now. PEPRA is applicable to most public agencies, except charter cities and charter counties that have their own independent retirement systems that are not subject to a state-wide scheme. 2 PEPRA made several changes that reduced long-term pension costs. As most employers are aware, the formulas for new members are typically lower than for classic members. Employers are also restricted in their ability to adopt supplemental defined benefit plans after December 31, 2012 and may not enroll employees hired on or after January 1, As discussed in more detail below, PEPRA also eliminated Employer Paid Member Contributions ( EPMC ) for new members and made cost sharing easier. New members are required to pay 50% of total normal cost of their retirement benefit. 4 PEPRA also requires new members to have final compensation determined based on a 36-month period. 5 Many employers had previously contracted to have final compensation determined based on a 12-month period. Moreover, if an employer did not contract to have final compensation determined based on a 12-month period for classic members before January 1, 2013, the agency cannot elect a 12-month final compensation period, even for classic members. 6 Despite PEPRA s changes, cost savings have not been quickly realized. Part of the reason savings have not been realized is due to the inherent nature of the changes, which will take time before employers see a real reduction in total retirement costs. However, in addition to the slow nature of the changes, CalPERS reduced its discount rate, which is an actuarial assumption regarding return on investment, from 7.75% to 7.5%. Some other retirement boards have made similar moves. Lowering the discount rate increases employer contributions because the shortfall must be made up, in part, by employer contributions. CalPERS also altered its smoothing and amortization policies to require gains and losses to be amortized over a fixed 30- year period with increases or decreases in the rate spread directly over a 5-year period. CalPERS 2 Gov. Code, Gov. Code, Gov. Code, (c). 5 Gov. Code, (a). 6 Gov. Code, (b).
5 also changed its actuarial assumptions to reflect that retirees will be living longer. Agencies have also had to deal with the staggering increases in employee and retiree health costs. Many agencies promised fully paid employee and retiree health care years or decades ago. With health care premiums rapidly rising, many agencies are paying far more for retiree medical benefits than they had initially anticipated. B. Reducing Employer Paid Member Contributions ( EPMC ) In addition to the mandatory PEPRA requirements, employers have several other options to reduce long-term retirement costs. EPMC is a benefit where the employer pays all or a portion of a member s statutorily required contribution. 7 Some employers also report the amount paid as EPMC as additional compensation, which increases compensation earnable for the purposes of calculating pension benefits. 8 PEPRA did not alter EPMC rules for classic members. An employer may still pay all or a portion of the member contribution for a classic member. However, under PEPRA, new members must pay at least 50% of the normal cost of their retirement benefit, and the employer cannot pay any part of the member s portion on their behalf. 9 Many employers have reduced retirement costs by reducing or eliminating EPMC for classic members. Subject to an agency s obligation under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act ( MMBA ) an employer can reduce EPMC all the way to zero, which in effect requires the employee to pay their entire member contribution on their own behalf. Employers who do not reduce or eliminate EPMC may also discontinue reporting EPMC as additional compensation, which lowers the base for retirement benefits. Typically, for CalPERS members, member contributions are 7, 8, or 9 percent of the member s payroll. Where an employer is paying all of 7 For employers with retirement systems organized under the County Employees Retirement Law of 1937, the member contribution is set by the retirement board. 8 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, Gov. Code, (c).
6 an employee s contribution, or even a large potion, a reduction of EPMC can result in substantial savings to the agency. C. Requiring Cost Sharing Cost sharing is an arrangement where the agency and employees agree that the employees will pay part of the agency s contribution to the retirement system. 10 For CalPERS employers, there are two ways that the agency can agree to cost-sharing. The agency can amend their contract with CalPERS as to an entire membership class to have cost sharing, which often requires negotiations with several different bargaining groups. 11 Under the contract amendment option, employee contributions towards the employer s share are considered member contributions and are credited to the employee s member account. Alternatively, the agency and a bargaining unit can agree in a memorandum of understanding ( MOU ) to have employees pay a portion of the agency s contribution. 12 Under the MOU method, the employee contributions towards the employer share are not credited to the member account. Until January 1, 2018, employers cannot impose on represented employees who are not defined as new members that they pay 50% of normal cost. 13 Effective January 1, 2018, an employer may require that classic members pay 50% of normal cost even by imposition. However, the employer must exhaust all mandatory impasse procedures. Where cost sharing is imposed, employee contributions cannot exceed 8% for miscellaneous members; 12 % for police, fire, and county peace officers; or 11% for all other local safety members. However, it does not appear that this method of cost sharing has any advantages over the traditional model discussed above. In some cases, employers and employees agree to cost sharing without reducing EPMC. Where EPMC is reported as additional compensation, the employee maintains their retirement 10 Gov. Code, , Gov. Code, 20516(a). 12 Gov. Code, 20516(f). 13 Gov. Code,
7 base and future retirement benefit. However, the employer still recognizes savings through the employee s payment of the employer s share as cost sharing. Therefore, the combination of cost sharing and EPMC can be mutually beneficial to employers and employees and may create flexibility in negotiations. III. Analyzing Vested Rights to Health and Retirement Benefits for Employees and Retirees A. Sources of Vested Rights Generally, an employer cannot reduce or modify vested health or retirement benefits. Before making modifications to benefits, the employer must review all sources that may confer a vested right to benefits. Common sources of vesting include labor agreements, resolutions of the governing body, city and county codes, charters, statutes and personnel rules and regulations. The employer should also assess the strength of any possible implied promises to a specific benefit type or amount. Implied promises, which will be discussed in more detail below, may take the form of combinations of past practices, employee handbooks, recruitment publications and flyers, representations by the employer, etc. The vested portion of any particular benefit is determined by analyzing the benefits in effect when employment commences, as well as any benefits conferred during employment. 14 B. Legal Framework Governing Vested Rights The statutory and constitutional provisions governing an analysis of vested rights has not changed in recent years. Instead, recent case law has uniformly continued a trend holding that vested rights analyzed under the existing legal framework are not vested. Courts have also provided clarification that supports the position that health benefits generally are not vested. Recent decisions have uniformly taken a narrow interpretation of implied vested rights to 14 Betts v. Board of Administration (1978) 21 Cal.3d 859, 866.
8 continued benefits and employees have a difficult burden prevailing on a vested rights claim absent express language suggesting a vested right. The contracts clauses of the United States and California constitutions prevent State and local governments from passing laws that impair the obligation of contracts. 15 Once vested, an employees contractual right to receive benefits are protected by the contracts clauses. The starting point in determining whether benefits are vested is the language of the document itself. Whether a benefit is vested is a matter of the parties intent. 16 Courts apply a two-step test to determine whether a benefit exists. 17 First, the court will determine whether a valid contract exists promising a benefit. Second, if there is a contract conferring a benefit, is there an express or implied term that the benefit will continue for a specified period or in a particular form. If either question is answered in the negative, the benefit can be modified without impairing vested contractual rights. As the test above indicates, vested rights can be express or implied under California law. Implied terms stand on equal footing with express terms. 18 However, based on case law, employees have several hurdles to overcome in showing an implied vested right to benefits. First, express terms will prevail over implied terms. Second, vested rights will not be implied without a clear basis in the contract or convincing extrinsic evidence. Third, employees bear the heavy burden of overcoming the presumption that legislative enactments do not create vested rights. The Ninth Circuit has recently stated that a practice or policy extended over a period of time does not translate into an implied contract right without clear legislative intent to create that right. 19 The Ninth Circuit s recent statement has reduced the likelihood that employees can succeed on an implied rights theory merely because of a long-standing practice of providing benefits. 15 U.S. Const. Art. I, 10, cl. 1; Cal. Const. Art. I, Retired Employees Assn. of Orange County, Inc. v. County of Orange (2011) 52 Cal.4th 1171, Sonoma County Association of Retired Employees v. Sonoma County (9th Cir. 2013) 708 F.3d 1109, Retired Employees Assn. of Orange County, Inc., supra, 52 Cal.4th Retired Employees Ass'n of Orange County, Inc. v. County of Orange (9th Cir. 2014) 742 F.3d 1137, 1142
9 At this time, cases analyzing vested rights have almost exclusively focused on vested rights to retiree medical benefits. Although the above analysis appears to be applicable to all benefits, it is not clear how far courts will go in extending the rationale to other types of longevity based benefits. C. Modifying Vested Health and Retirement Benefits for Employees and Retirees If retires or employees are vested, modifying the benefits is extremely difficult and the opportunities for cost savings are virtually non-existent. A union cannot bargain away vested rights. To modify a retiree s vested rights, the employer must reach an agreement with individual retirees. Of course, this will almost never be practical, especially on a large scale. For current employees, the employer must reach an agreement with individual employees, or the modification must bear a material relation to the theory of the pension system and any disadvantages must be met with comparable advantages. 20 Thus, even for current employees, vested benefits cannot be easily modified. Moreover, cost savings are unlikely since employees must receive comparable advantages to offset any disadvantages. D. Vested Rights for Future Employees With respect to future employees, they generally do not have any vested benefits. However, as will be discussed below, there are some benefits that may be subject to statutory limitations. For example, the Public Employees Retirement Law ( PERL ) 21, the County Employees Retirement Law of 1937 ( CERL or 37 Act ) 22, or the Public Employees Hospital and Medical Care Act ( PEMHCA ) 23 may restrict an employer s ability to reduce or eliminate benefits, even for future employees. 20 Betts, supra, 21 Cal.3d at Gov. Code, et seq. 22 Gov. Code, et seq. 23 Gov. Code, et seq.
10 IV. Strategies for Controlling Health Care Costs A. Reducing Medical and Retiree Medical Through Tiering In order to control employee and retiree health care costs, employers can adopt different tiers of benefits. Under a tiering system, the employer typically adopts a lower amount of benefits applicable to all employees hired after a specified date. For example, the employer may adopt MOU language that provides that all employees hired on or before June 30, 2106 shall receive a $500 contribution towards health benefits and that employees hired on or after July 1, 2016 will receive a $200 contribution. Such language results in two groups of employees receiving a different benefit amount. Similar tiering language can be drafted for retiree medical benefits. As noted above, with respect to future employees, the tiers generally will not impair vested rights. For current employees and retirees, the agency may still adopt tiering, but must first undertake a vested rights analysis to ensure that the agency is not impairing vested rights. An employee or retiree is not necessarily vested in the benefit they are currently receiving. A vested rights analysis must still be undertaken to determine what portion, if any, employees or retirees have vested in. For future employees, or where no vested rights are implicated, agencies that are not subject to PEMHCA may theoretically reduce contributions to employee and retiree medical benefits to zero. B. Special Consideration for Agencies Participating in PEMHCA Employers who participate in PEMHCA, which is also commonly referred to as CalPERS medical, have additional constraints on reducing employee and retiree health benefits because they must comply with its statutory and regulatory provisions, which will supersede contradictory language in an MOU Gov. Code,
11 Employers who provide health benefits through PEMHCA must, with limited exceptions, comply with the minimum contribution and equal contribution rules. 25 The minimum contribution rule requires that employers contribute a specified minimum monthly dollar amount to retirees and employees. The minimum monthly amount is adjusted annually by CalPERS. In 2015 the minimum contribution was $122 and in 2016 it will be $ Employers may fix the contribution for employees at or above the statutory minimum. Employers who provide health care benefits through PEMHCA are also restricted by the equal contribution rule. Under the equal contribution rule, the employer s contribution for employees and retirees must be equal within the same group or class of employees. The equal contribution rule limits the ability of employers to create tiers of benefits applicable only to future employees. Despite the minimum and equal contribution rules, employers have some flexibility for ensuring compliance with the rules while reducing health care costs. Assuming there are no vested rights to employee or retiree medical benefits, the employer may, subject to the MMBA, reduce the employer contribution to the statutory minimum for all future employees, current employees, and retirees. Where current employees or retirees have vested in a benefit amount, the employer may still negotiate to reduce the PEMHCA contribution to the statutory minimum for future employees, current employees, and retirees. Employees can have their vested rights protected by having any amount above the PEMHCA statutory minimum placed in a cafeteria plan. Retirees can have their vested rights protected by having any amount in excess of the statutory minimum contributed to a health reimbursement account. Although the employer provides different total amounts, this method likely insulates employers from employees or retirees claiming that the equal contribution rule entitles them to the additional contributions. 25 Gov. Code, The limited exceptions are the vesting schedule and the unequal method. The exceptions are beyond the scope of this paper and presentation. The exceptions also have various drawbacks that must be considered before implementation. 26 CalPERS Circular Letter No
12 In order to avoid PEMHCA s restrictions altogether, or to adopt a contribution tier below the minimum contribution, an agency would have to withdraw from PEMHCA, which is in itself a difficult process. The agency must pass a resolution opting out of PEMHCA for the following calendar year, which must be filed with CalPERS within 60 days after CalPERS announces its plan premiums for the following year. Of course, the agency must bargain the withdrawal from PEMHCA in advance of filing the resolution. The election to withdraw becomes irrevocable after the resolution is filed and the agency cannot elect to become subject to PEMHCA for five years after the termination date. 27 V. Drafting and Interpreting Bargaining Agreement Language Agencies that are drafting bargaining agreements, policies, or resolutions concerning retirement and health benefits can avoid vested rights claims by carefully drafting language to clearly indicate that there is no intent to create vested rights. Granting documents should include language that states there is no intent to create a vested right and that the employer retains the right to amend, reduce, modify, or eliminate the benefit at any time. Agencies should also bear in mind that courts generally apply traditional principles of contract interpretation to MOUs and other granting documents when analyzing vested benefits. 28 As noted above, in interpreting contracts, there is a well-established rule that implied terms cannot prevail over express terms. 29 Based on this rule, an express statement that a right is not vested likely cannot be defeated by extrinsic evidence such as established past practice, job announcements, or declarations from employees and union officials stating that they understood or were advised that the benefit was intended to be vested. Express language should also help agencies prevail at the early stages of litigation if employees do bring a lawsuit based on an implied vested rights theory. 27 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, City of El Cajon v. El Cajon Police Officers' Assn. (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 64, Retired Employees Assn. of Orange County, Inc., 52 Cal.4th at 1179.
13 Granting documents should not refer to future benefits or retirees. As mentioned above, recent case law has trended decidedly away from finding vested rights. International Brotherhood v. City of Redding, provides the only recent published case finding that a right to retiree health benefits may be vested. 30 The language at issue in International Brotherhood stated, [t]he City will pay fifty percent (50%) of the group medical insurance program premium for each retiree and dependents, if any, presently enrolled and for each retiree in the future. The court noted that the presently enrolled language referred to those retirees enrolled during the term of the MOU. The court went on to state that the most reasonable interpretation of for each retiree in the future is that the benefit was promised to active employees when they retired. In other words, the language regarding future retirees created a vested right in favor of employees who were covered by the MOU, even if they did not retire during the term of the MOU. If the benefit only applied until the expiration of the MOU, the in the future language would be unnecessary. Thus, references to future benefits or retirees should be avoided. Given the enormous costs and repercussions of imprecise drafting, agencies should ensure that their intent is clearly set forth in MOUs and other granting documents. 31 VI. Conclusion It remains to be seen to what extent and how fast PEPRA will lead to cost savings for public agencies, but it is likely that it will take several years before any noticeable reductions are felt. However, agencies have other tools to lower their short and long-term retirement and health benefits costs. Many agencies are reducing EPMC and increasing cost sharing to reduce employer costs. Employers can also create different benefit tiers based on hire date to reduce benefits costs. Moreover, recent case law tends to suggest that health care benefits generally are 30 International Brotherhood v. City of Redding (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th The case was decided at the demurrer stage and the language at issue was never analyzed on the merits after the appellate court ordered the lower court to overrule the demurrer. 31 For example, some agencies have inserted language in their MOUs that state, employees shall have no vested right to continue receiving this benefit beyond the expiration of the MOU or the parties do not intend to create any vested right to continued receipt of the benefit.
14 not vested and that employees and retirees do not have vested rights to continued benefits absent express language or convincing extrinsic evidence to the contrary. This recent case law has made it more likely that agencies can reduce health and retirement benefits without impairing vested rights.
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS AND CITY BUDGETS: CAN THE PLANETS ALIGN?
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS AND CITY BUDGETS: CAN THE PLANETS ALIGN? Eight Potential Areas of Cost Savings in Employee Compensation League of California Cities City Attorneys Spring Conference Santa Barbara, California
More informationCalPERS Audits & Related Issues How City Attorneys Can Prepare, Survive And Litigate
CalPERS Audits & Related Issues How City Attorneys Can Prepare, Survive And Litigate Friday, October 2, 2015 General Session; 10:30 11:45 a.m. Steven M. Berliner, Liebert Cassidy Whitmore DISCLAIMER: These
More informationFAQs: Pension Reform Act of 2013
Page 1 of 7 Employer Information > Benefit Programs & Contracting Services > Pension Reform Impacts > FAQs: Pension Reform Act of 2013 FAQs: Pension Reform Act of 2013 These frequently asked questions
More informationCircular Letter December 3, 2012
California Public Employees Retirement System P.O. Box 942709 Sacramento, CA 94229-2709 Reference No.: (888) CalPERS (or 888-225-7377) Circular Letter No.: 200-055-12 TTY: (877) 249-7442 Distribution:
More informationThe Art of Reducing OPEB Liabilities
The Art of Reducing OPEB Liabilities Isabel Safie, Partner BB&K Municipal Law Webinar Series October 19, 2017 linkedin.com/company/bestbestkrieger @bbklaw 2017 Best Best & Krieger LLP Looking at the Numbers
More informationPension Reform Act Implementation Issues
Pension Reform Act Implementation Issues Thursday, May 9, 2013 General Session; 9:00 10:30 a.m. Robert A. Blum, Hanson Bridgett Cepideh Roufougar, Jackson Lewis League of California Cities 2013 Spring
More informationCalifornia Public Employees Pension Reform Act of 2013 ( PEPRA ) FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
California Public Employees Pension Reform Act of 2013 ( PEPRA ) FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS Recent news about the enactment of new pension laws as a result of the California Public Employees Pension Reform
More informationSAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT COMPENSATION FOR THE ELECTED CITY CLERK AND ELECTED PART-TIME CITY ATTORNEY
Agenda Item No: 6.e Meeting Date: September 19, 2016 Department: Management Services SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Prepared by: Stacey Peterson, HR Director City Manager Approval: TOPIC: SUBJECT:
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Filed 1/22/15 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPUTY SHERIFFS' ASSOCIATION OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. D065364
More informationCalPERS Overview. Presented by: Director of Finance, Joseph Lillio
CalPERS Overview Presented by: Director of Finance, Joseph Lillio Overview What is PEPRA? PERS Benefits How they have evolved What is PEPRA? The Costs Past, Present, and Future What the City has done to
More informationCalPERS Update & Additional Payment Discussion
CalPERS Update & Additional Payment Discussion CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 20, 2018 2/20/18 1 La Palma Pension Plan 3 Miscellaneous Plans Tier I 2.7% @ 55 Effective 2003 Tier II 2.0% @60 Effective 2011 Tier
More informationSENATE BILL No. 13 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY SEPTEMBER 3, 2013 AMENDED IN SENATE FEBRUARY 6, Introduced by Senator Beall.
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY SEPTEMBER 3, 2013 AMENDED IN SENATE FEBRUARY 6, 2013 SENATE BILL No. 13 Introduced by Senator Beall December 3, 2012 An act to amend Sections 7522.02, 7522.04, 7522.10, 7522.25, 7522.30,
More informationLabor Negotiations Community Meeting May 13, 2015
Labor Negotiations 2015 Community Meeting May 13, 2015 Overview of Negotiations The City has 9 employee associations The law in California requires that the City negotiate with each association in good
More informationPublic Pension Reform (AB 340 and AB 197): A Primer
1400 K Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, California 95814 Phone: 916.658.8200 Fax: 916.658.8240 www.cacities.org Public Pension Reform (AB 340 and AB 197): A Primer Section I Overview and Bill Summary Section
More informationImportant Developments and Trends Affecting Public Sector Pensions, OPEB, and Other Benefits
California Society of Municipal Finance Officers CSMFO February 9, 2017 Important Developments and Trends Affecting Public Sector Pensions, OPEB, and Other Benefits A Presentation by: Amy Brown, Owner,
More informationA Better Understanding of Belvedere s Pension Costs and Obligations
A Better Understanding of Belvedere s Pension Costs and Obligations A draft summary prepared by Bob McCaskill with input from Mary Neilan and Becky Eastman The recent front-page headline of the Marin Independent
More informationSAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT COMPENSATION FOR THE ELECTED CITY CLERK AND ELECTED PART- TIME CITY ATTORNEY
Agenda Item No: 7.i Meeting Date: June 18, 2018 SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Department: Human Resources Prepared by: Stacey Peterson, HR Director City Manager Approval: TOPIC: SUBJECT: COMPENSATION
More informationIn addressing some possible viable options and recommendations, the Pension Subcommittee has prepared a presentation enumerates a number of basic fina
To: Honorable Mayor Sinnott and Council Member Corti Liaisons to the Finance Committee From: Jeffrey G. Sturgis Chair, Finance Committee Date: May 1, 2013 Subject: Finance Committee Recommendations regarding
More informationStaff Report. Elia Bamberger, Director of Human Resources
9.h Staff Report Date: July 12, 2016 To: From: Reviewed by: Prepared by: Subject: City Council Valerie J. Barone, City Manager Elia Bamberger, Director of Human Resources Teresa Fairbanks, Senior Human
More informationCALPERS MAY PREVAIL DESPITE BANKRUPTCY JUDGE S WARNING
CALPERS MAY PREVAIL DESPITE BANKRUPTCY JUDGE S WARNING IN CITY OF STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA THAT FAILURE TO IMPAIR PUBLIC PENSION OBLIGATIONS MAY CONSTITUTE UNFAIR DISCRIMINATION IN PLAN OF ADJUSTMENT Timothy
More informationLFN The Impact of Chapter 2, P.L on Local Unit Health Benefits Programs. May 18, 2010
a LFN 2010-12 May 18, 2010 Contact Information Director's Office V. 609.292.6613 F. 609.292.9073 Local Government Research V. 609.292.6110 F. 609.292.9073 Financial Regulation and Assistance V. 609.292.4806
More informationCopyright 2016 by The Segal Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
Sacramento County Employees Retirement System (SCERS) Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement 67 (GASBS 67) Actuarial Valuation as of June 30, 2016 This report has been prepared at the request
More informationCALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OPTIONAL BENEFITS LISTING
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OPTIONAL BENEFITS LISTING CONTENTS Item Page A. Introduction 1 B. Member Groups Eligible for Separate Benefits 1 C. Purchasing Power Protection Account and
More informationWorkshop Item No. 8 September 27, 2017 File No
Workshop Item No. 8 File No. 0460-20 SUBJECT: DEPARTMENT: CalPERS Pension Funding Workshop Administrative Services Department RECOMMENDATION: It is requested that the City Council receive and file workshop
More informationCalPERS: What s New, What s Old and What s to Come
CalPERS: What s New, What s Old and What s to Come Agenda Introductions CalPERS GASB 68 Cost Sharing Reports Annual Actuarial Valuations Where Rates are Headed Funding Risk Mitigation The Rialto Example
More informationIMPERIAL COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM. Review of Economic Actuarial Assumptions for the June 30, 2014 Actuarial Valuation
IMPERIAL COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM Review of Economic Actuarial Assumptions for the June 30, 2014 Actuarial Valuation 100 Montgomery Street, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94104 COPYRIGHT 2014 ALL
More informationMEMORANDUM CITY COUNCIL. SUBJECT: SEE BELOW DATE: April 5, City Administrator Approval /s/ Scott P. Johnson 4/5/13 INFORMATION
DISTRIBUTION DATE: 4/5/13 MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL FROM: Katano Kasaine SUBJECT: SEE BELOW DATE: April 5, 2013 City Administrator Date Approval /s/ Scott P. Johnson 4/5/13 INFORMATION
More informationPension Reform Legislation Analysis By John Lovell
Pension Reform Legislation Analysis 9-7-12 By John Lovell AB 340 was enacted by the Legislature at warp speed last week. The text of the Legislation was unveiled on Tuesday evening, August 28, adopted
More informationTRANSBAY JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY
STAFF REPORT FOR CALENDAR ITEM NO. : 12 FOR THE MEETING OF: December 8, 2011 TRANSBAY JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY BRIEF DESCRIPTION: Approve the following resolutions to remove Local Government Services (LGS)
More informationMEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO AND THE WEST SACRAMENTO POLICE MANAGERS ASSOCIATION Effective July 1, 2017 through December 31, 2020 Table of Contents 1. Recitals... 3 2.
More informationREPORT TO MAYOR AND COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4.e REPORT TO MAYOR AND COUNCIL TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL: DATE: July 22, 2014 SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION PROVIDING DIRECTION TO STAFF TO WORK WITH Report in Brief During the
More informationHow we Did it! Achieving Goals in Simultaneous Negotiations with Six Bargaining Groups
How we Did it! Achieving Goals in Simultaneous Negotiations with Six Bargaining Groups Jose O. Cortes, Assistant Human Resources Manager City of Inglewood Background: The City of Inglewood, as are most
More informationCSMFO CalPERS Actuarial Issues
CSMFO CalPERS Actuarial Issues Presented by Prepared by John E. Bartel Mary Elizabeth Redding, Partner Bianca Lin, Assistant Vice President Matthew Childs, Actuarial Analyst James Yuan, Actuarial Analyst
More informationHistory & Cost of the City of Concord s Retiree Healthcare Benefit Program
History & Cost of the City of Concord s Retiree Healthcare Benefit Program Executive Summary Substantially all full-time City of Concord employees and their qualified dependents are eligible for retiree
More informationMeeting Date: September 28, From: Amy Cunningham, Administrative Services Director
Town of Moraga Ordinances, Resolutions, Requests for Action Agenda Item. E. 0 0 0 0 Meeting Date: September, 0 TOWN OF MORAGA STAFF REPORT_ To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: Amy Cunningham,
More informationStopping the Runaway Pension Train
Executive Director s Message by Carolyn Coleman Stopping the Runaway Pension Train The cost of employee pensions for California cities is rising at rates that, in most cases, far exceed municipal annual
More informationYou are being provided with the background, explanation, and instructions for the Reciprocal Self-Certification Form (PERS-CASD 801).
California Public Employees Retirement System P.O. Box 942709 Sacramento, CA 94229-2709 888 CalPERS (or 888-225-7377) TTY: (877) 249-7442 Fax: (916) 795-4166 www.calpers.ca.gov Employer Account Management
More informationUNITED STATES OF AMERICA Before the SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 Release No. 9135 / August 18, 2010 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING File No. 3-14009 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Before the SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION In the Matter of Respondent.
More informationCase No. C IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
Case No. C081929 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT PARADISE IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al., Petitioners and Appellants, v. COMMISSION ON STATE MANDATES, Respondent,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA CAL FIRE LOCAL 2881 et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, Defendant and Respondent; STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Intervener and Respondent. S239958
More informationCHALLENGES IN EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION, PENSION FUNDING, AND POST EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS
CHALLENGES IN EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION, PENSION FUNDING, AND POST 2009 CITY ATTORNEYS SPRING CONFERENCE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES RESORT AT SQUAW CREEK MAY 6 8, 2009 Charles D. Sakai Genevieve Ng Renne
More informationFiled 9/19/17 Borrego Community Health Found. v. State Dept. of Health Care Services CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Filed 9/19/17 Borrego Community Health Found. v. State Dept. of Health Care Services CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying
More informationCOUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA LEGISLATIVE ANALYSIS FORM
COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA LEGISLATIVE ANALYSIS FORM 1 This form is required for the Legislative Program Committee to consider taking an advocacy position on an issue or legislative item. BILL NUMBER: AB
More informationAuthorization to Establish IRS Section 115 Trust Fund and Appoint the City Manager as the Plan Administrator
Page 1 of 10 Office of the City Manager June 26, 2018 To: From: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager Submitted by: Henry Oyekanmi, Director, Finance Department
More informationVENTURA COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION (VCERA) REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR ACTUARIAL AUDIT SERVICES
VENTURA COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION (VCERA) REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR ACTUARIAL AUDIT SERVICES Issued April 3, 2017 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION DEADLINE: May 5, 2017 Ventura County Employees Retirement
More informationThe Pension Problem and What the City Is Doing About It
The Pension Problem and What the City Is Doing About It 1 2 Why Are We Here Today? I N F O R M P L A N Q & A Inform all stakeholders of the problem and the process to develop a plan Lay out process to
More informationCity of Piedmont COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
City of Piedmont COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT DATE: March 19, 2018 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Mayor and Council Paul Benoit, City Administrator Consideration of Fixing the Employer Contribution at an Equal Amount for
More informationCITY OF SAUSALITO MISCELLANEOUS AND SAFETY PLANS. CalPERS Actuarial Issues 6/30/14 Valuation Preliminary Results
CITY OF SAUSALITO MISCELLANEOUS AND SAFETY PLANS CalPERS Actuarial Issues 6/30/14 Valuation Preliminary Results Presented by John Bartel, President Prepared by Bianca Lin, Assistant Vice President Kevin
More informationCalifornia Public Employees Retirement System Lincoln Plaza Q Street - Sacramento, CA 95811
Actuarial Office P.O. Box 942709 Sacramento, CA 94229-2709 Telecommunications Device for the Deaf - (916) 795-3240 (888) CalPERS (225-7377) FAX (916) 795-2744 October 2008 MISCELLANEOUS PLAN OF THE CITY
More informationSTATE OF OREGON LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL COMMITTEE
Dexter A. Johnson LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL 900 COURT ST NE S101 SALEM, OREGON 97301-4065 (503) 986-1243 FAX: (503) 373-1043 www.oregonlegislature.gov/lc STATE OF OREGON LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL COMMITTEE Senator
More informationRESOLUTION NO ( 2017 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, REGARDING MANAGEMENT COMPENSATION
RESOLUTION NO. 10785 ( 2017 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, REGARDING MANAGEMENT COMPENSATION FOR APPOINTED MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES DEPARTMENT
More informationPERS Path Forward: Risks, Opportunities and Options
PERS Path Forward: Risks, Opportunities and Options Wednesday, May 2, 2018 General Session; 1:00 3:00 p.m. Jonathan V. Holtzman, Renne Public Law Group Mary Beth Redding, Bartel Associates DISCLAIMER:
More informationSacramento County Employees Retirement System (SCERS)
Sacramento County Employees Retirement System (SCERS) Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement 68 (GASBS 68) Actuarial Valuation Based on June 30, 2017 Measurement Date for Employer Reporting
More informationBulletin. CalSTRS Retirement Incentive Programs. Date: February 13,
Bulletin Topic: CalSTRS Retirement Incentive Programs Date: February 13, 2004 04-18 To: From: Chief Administrative Officers Human Resources Administrators Business Managers Lora Duzyk, Executive Director
More informationModifying public pension benefits
Modifying public pension benefits Cynthia L. Moore, Attorney at Law Former Washington Counsel National Council on Teacher Retirement Gainesville, Florida cindiemoore@yahoo.com Ground Rules Overview of
More informationWhen City Hall Moves to the Bankruptcy Courthouse (Chapter 9 and AB 506)
When City Hall Moves to the Bankruptcy Courthouse (Chapter 9 and AB 506) County Counsels Association of California 2012 Annual Meeting September 12-14, 2012 San Diego, California Presented By Allan H.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Supreme Court Case No. S239958 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA CAL FIRE LOCAL 2881, et al. Petitioners and Appellants, v. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM (CalPERS), Defendant
More informationCALPERS UPDATES, RATES AND ALTERNATIVES. Basic Pension Rule: Benefits + Expenses. Contributions* + Investment Earnings. Agenda
CALPERS UPDATES, RATES AND ALTERNATIVES Agenda Topic Definitions How We Got Here and CalPERS Changes Current and Historical Plan Information Contribution Projections PEPRA Cost Sharing Paying Down the
More informationSection 2. ACTUARIAL VALUATION as of June 30, for CalPERS SAFETY RISK POOL
Section 2 ACTUARIAL VALUATION as of June 30, 2013 for CalPERS SAFETY RISK POOL REQUIRED CONTRIBUTIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR July 1, 2015 June 30, 2016 Page 1 of 88 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Page 2 of
More informationMEETING DATE: 03/23/2017 ITEM NO: 2 TOWN OF LOS GATOS FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT DATE: MARCH 17, 2017 COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE
TOWN OF LOS GATOS FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT MEETING DATE: 03/23/2017 ITEM NO: 2 DATE: MARCH 17, 2017 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE LAUREL PREVETTI, TOWN MANAGER REVIEW, DISCUSS, AND RECOMMEND
More informationLabor and Employment Litigation Update
Labor and Employment Litigation Update League of CA Cities 2013 Annual City Attorney s Conference May 10, 2013 Presented By: Richard Whitmore PERSONNEL RECORDS A hearing officer in a police officer s disciplinary
More informationBudget Stabilization Plan Summary of Observations and Recommendations
To: From: Subject: Mr. Troy Butzlaff, City Administrator Cathy Standiford, Partner Budget Stabilization Plan Summary of Observations and Recommendations Date: December 18, 2013 This memorandum summarizes
More informationProposed CalPERS Changes in Risk Pooling for Small Public Agencies. Webinar: April 30, 2014
Proposed CalPERS Changes in Risk Pooling for Small Public Agencies Webinar: April 30, 2014 Webinar Moderator Chris McKenzie League of California Cities Executive Director since 1999 Agenda Introduction,
More informationBOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO ANNUAL PENSIONS AND OTHER POST-EMPLOYMENT OBLIGATIONS DISCLOSURE. As of June 21, 2017
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO ANNUAL PENSIONS AND OTHER POST-EMPLOYMENT OBLIGATIONS DISCLOSURE As of June 21, 2017 The information contained herein regarding annual pensions and other post-employment
More informationORDINANCE 1670 City of Southfield
ORDINANCE 1670 City of Southfield AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 14 TITLE 1 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SOUTHFIELD TITLED THE RETIREE HEALTH CARE BENEFIT PLAN AND TRUST. The City of Southfield Ordains: Section
More informationCITY OF DIXON TRANSIT FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS WITH INDEPENDENT AUDITOR S REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2015
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS WITH INDEPENDENT AUDITOR S REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS WITH INDEPENDENT AUDITOR S REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED Financial Section CITY OF DIXON TRANSIT
More informationMemorandum. Written Report. Background/Discussion
Memorandum DATE: April 18, 2018 TO: Members of the Board of Retirement FROM: Gina M. Ratto, General Counsel SUBJECT: LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Written Report Background/Discussion The California Legislature reconvened
More informationBenefits & Retirement Overview
Benefits & Retirement Overview January 25, 2012 Employee Groups 7 Executive Management (Unrepresented) 17 Managers (Unrepresented) 16 Tech Svcs 18 Other (Unrepresented) Eng Admin / Clerical 26 49 OCEA
More informationCalifornia State Social Security Administrator Program (SSSAP)
California State Social Security Administrator Program (SSSAP) SSSAP Bulletin No. 5 September 2013 EFFECT OF SOCIAL SECURITY COVERAGE ON CALPERS BENEFITS Most members 1 of CalPERS contribute to Social
More informationThe Funding Status of Independent Public Employee Pension Systems in California
SIEPR policy brief Stanford University November 2010 Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research on the web: http://siepr.stanford.edu The Funding Status of Independent Public Employee Pension Systems
More informationSOME THOUGHTS ON PROPOSITIONS 62 AND Does Proposition 62 affect a charter municipality s local taxing powers?
SOME THOUGHTS ON PROPOSITIONS 62 AND 218 Jay-Allen Eisen Jay-Allen Eisen Law Corporation Sacramento CA January 8, 2003 1. Does Proposition 62 affect a charter municipality s local taxing powers? Proposition
More informationCITY OF SIGNAL HILL. Waive further reading and adopt the following resolutions, entitled:
December 12, 2014 CITY OF SIGNAL HILL 2175 Cherry Avenue Signal Hill, CA 90755-3799 AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL CHARLIE HONEYCUTT DEPUTY CITY MANAGER SUBJECT:
More informationBoard Administrative Policy Declining Employer Payroll Policy
Board Administrative Policy Declining Employer Payroll Policy I. Purpose A. A participating employer in the San Joaquin County Employees Retirement Association (SJCERA) may experience an actual or expected
More informationMISCELLANEOUS PLAN OF THE CITRUS PEST CONTROL DISTRICT #2 OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY (CalPERS ID: ) Annual Valuation Report as of June 30, 2013
California Public Employees Retirement System Actuarial Office P.O. Box 942709 Sacramento, CA 94229-2709 TTY: (916) 795-3240 (888) 225-7377 phone (916) 795-2744 fax www.calpers.ca.gov October 2014 MISCELLANEOUS
More informationCalifornia Public Employees Retirement System 888 CalPERS 888 Employer Account Management Division
Employer Account Management Division Dear Member, You are being provided with the background, explanation, and instructions for the Reciprocal Self-Certification Form (PERS-EAMD 801). Reciprocity among
More informationMichigan Public School Employees Retirement System: Major Changes in Recent Years and More Changes to Come
Michigan Public School Employees Retirement System: Major Changes in Recent Years and More Changes to Come The Michigan Public School Employees Retirement System (MPSERS) provides a defined benefit retirement
More informationKurt Schneider, Retirement Deputy Chief Executive Officer
MEM{) ~. ~---,--: -.1) Date: December 24,2012 To: From: Subject: CCCERA Employers Kurt Schneider, Retirement Deputy Chief Executive Officer 2013 Compensation Limits Enclosed are two memos from CCCERA:
More informationFACTFINDING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
FACTFINDING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS In the Matter of Factfinding: CITY OF HESPERIA and Employer, TEAMSTERS LOCAL 1932 Factfinding Panel: Union. Impartial Chairperson: Walter F. Daugherty Arbitrator/Factfinder
More informationRESOLUTION NO
RESOLUTION NO. 14196 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL ESTABLISHING THE COMPENSATION AND WORKING CONDITIONS FOR UNREPRESENTED EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES ( EXECUTIVES ) (July
More informationRESOLUTION ELECTING TO ESTABLISH A HEALTH BENEFIT VESTING REQUIREMENT FOR FUTURE RETIREES UNDER THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL CARE ACT
Agenda Item No. 9a November 11, 2008 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Honorable Mayor and City Council Attention: David J. Van Kirk, City Manager Dawn M. Villarreal, Director of Human Resources RESOLUTION APPROVING
More informationMEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN FRESNO COUNTY SHERIFF S CAPTAIN ASSOCIATION UNIT 38 AND THE COUNTY OF FRESNO MARCH 13, 2017 DECEMBER 15, 2019 UNIT 38 TABLE OF CONTENTS ARTICLE PAGE ANNUAL LEAVE/VACATION/SICK
More informationSUMMARY PLAN DESCRIPTION SAN DIEGO COUNTY REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY GENERAL MEMBER
SUMMARY PLAN DESCRIPTION SAN DIEGO COUNTY REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY GENERAL MEMBER SUMMARY PLAN DESCRIPTION SAN DIEGO COUNTY REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY GENERAL MEMBER EFFECTIVE APRIL 2004 401 B Street,
More informationRESOLUTION NO
RESOLUTION NO. 17-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN RELATING TO COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR UNREPRESENTED EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT AND MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES, AND SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION
More informationMISCELLANEOUS PLAN OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE (CalPERS ID: ) Annual Valuation Report as of June 30, 2013
California Public Employees Retirement System Actuarial Office P.O. Box 942701 Sacramento, CA 94229-2701 TTY: (916) 795-3240 (888) 225-7377 phone (916) 795-2744 fax www.calpers.ca.gov October 2014 MISCELLANEOUS
More informationEmployer Contribution Rate % % (projected)
California Public Employees Retirement System Actuarial Office P.O. Box 942701 Sacramento, CA 94229-2701 TTY: (916) 795-3240 (888) 225-7377 phone (916) 795-2744 fax www.calpers.ca.gov October 2015 SAFETY
More informationCHAPTER Committee Substitute for Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 1128
CHAPTER 2011-216 Committee Substitute for Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 1128 An act relating to public retirement plans; amending s. 112.63, F.S.; requiring plans to regularly disclose the plan
More informationSAFETY PLAN OF THE CITY OF PASADENA (CalPERS ID: ) Annual Valuation Report as of June 30, 2014
California Public Employees Retirement System Actuarial Office P.O. Box 942701 Sacramento, CA 94229-2701 TTY: (916) 795-3240 (888) 225-7377 phone (916) 795-2744 fax www.calpers.ca.gov October 2015 SAFETY
More informationReport to Board of Administration
Report to Board of Administration Agenda of: JULY 11, 2017 From: Thomas Moutes, General Manager ITEM: III-A SUBJECT: ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS REVIEW AND POSSIBLE BOARD ACTION Recommendations: That the Board
More informationSANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2017
INDEPENDENT AUDITOR S REPORT, MANAGEMENT S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS, BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2017 WITH COMPARATIVE INFORMATION FOR
More informationBOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF BUTTE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA Resolution No. 17-010 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY OF SUITE REGARDING SALARY AND BENEFITS OF APPOINTED CLASSIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT, COUNTY
More informationPension Workshop January 24 th 2012
Pension Workshop January 24 th 2012 Panel Members: Kristine Ridge, Human Resources Director City of Anaheim Kerry Worgan, FSA, FCIA, MAAA CalPERs - Senior Pension Actuary Catherine MacLeod, FSA, EA, MAAA
More informationThere may also be changes specific to your plan such as contract amendments and funding changes.
California Public Employees Retirement System Actuarial Office P.O. Box 942701 Sacramento, CA 94229-2701 TTY: (916) 795-3240 (888) 225-7377 phone (916) 795-2744 fax www.calpers.ca.gov October 2012 MISCELLANEOUS
More informationThe Impacts of Statewide Pension Reform on AFSCME District Council 36 Members and Where We Go From Here
The Impacts of Statewide Pension Reform on AFSCME District Council 36 Members and Where We Go From Here For quite a while now public employees have been dealing with a very difficult economic and political
More informationCity Council Report 915 I Street, 1 st Floor Sacramento, CA
City Council Report 915 I Street, 1 st Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 www.cityofsacramento.org File ID: 2017-01697 January 9, 2018 Discussion Item 18 Title: Authorization to Hire a Temporary Principal Planner
More informationJuly 13, 2018 LOCAL BALLOT INITIATIVES / REQUIREMENTS
July 13, 2018 LOCAL BALLOT INITIATIVES / REQUIREMENTS Please confirm specific requirements for local ballot measures with your respective agency attorney. The Proposed TFTAA is Withdrawn: The initiative
More informationTEACHERS RETIREMENT BOARD. REGULAR MEETING Item Number: 7 CONSENT: ATTACHMENT(S): 1. DATE OF MEETING: November 8, 2018 / 60 mins
TEACHERS RETIREMENT BOARD REGULAR MEETING Item Number: 7 SUBJECT: Review of CalSTRS Funding Levels and Risks CONSENT: ATTACHMENT(S): 1 ACTION: INFORMATION: X DATE OF MEETING: / 60 mins PRESENTER(S): Rick
More informationwhat is Reciprocity? what are the benefits of reciprocity?
what is Reciprocity? Reciprocity is an arrangement that allows you to link your current retirement benefits with another California public retirement system. It enables you to preserve and enhance your
More informationThere may also be changes specific to your plan such as contract amendments and funding changes.
California Public Employees Retirement System Actuarial Office P.O. Box 942701 Sacramento, CA 94229-2701 TTY: (916) 795-3240 (888) 225-7377 phone (916) 795-2744 fax www.calpers.ca.gov October 2012 SAFETY
More informationSan Diego City Employees Retirement System. Actuarial Valuation as of June 30, 2013 for the San Diego Unified Port District. Produced by Cheiron
San Diego City Employees Retirement System Actuarial Valuation as of June 30, 2013 for the San Diego Unified Port District Produced by Cheiron December 2013 Table of Contents Letter of Transmittal... i
More informationOctober 10, Sent via to: Dear Mr. Bean:
October 10, 2011 Mr. David Bean Director of Research and Technical Activities Project No. 34-E Governmental Accounting Standards Board 401 Merritt 7 PO Box 5116 Norwalk, CT 06856-5116 Sent via email to:
More information