Scheduled Pension Payments to County Retirees Mendocino County Employees Retirement Association

Similar documents
GASB Statement 68 Predictor Model Government Financial Reporting of Pension Finances. Application to the County of Mendocino 8/8/12

The Life Expectancy of Correctional Service of Canada Employees(1)

Handout 5: Summarizing Numerical Data STAT 100 Spring 2016

Performance Audit: Financial Indicators July 2016

Advanced Operating Models Quiz Questions

GASB Statement 68 Government Financial Reporting of Pension Finances Summary Explanation of Predictor Model 10/16/12

Employment Status of the Civilian Noninstitutional Population by Educational Attainment, Age, Sex and Race

Mendocino County Employees Retirement Association

New Mexico Public Education Department

YourPublicMoney.Com Memo 6/21/2010 v.1c. One Page Summary - Key Proposed Changes

STASTICAL METHODOLOGY FOR DEVELOPING TIME STANDARDS American Association for Respiratory Care 2011 All Rights Reserved

THE 800 POUND GORILLA IN THE ROOM

NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES THE GROWTH IN SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS AMONG THE RETIREMENT AGE POPULATION FROM INCREASES IN THE CAP ON COVERED EARNINGS

Measuring Retirement Plan Effectiveness

Property Taxes: A West Virginia Primer

A Brief Report on Norwegian Business Cycles Statistics, Preliminary draft

Intro to Retirement. Part 2: Types of Retirement Accounts

Developing Survey Expansion Factors

PENSION REFORM: LACERS TIER II. Presented by Miguel A. Santana City Administrative Officer City of Los Angeles September 25, 2012

Jacob: What data do we use? Do we compile paid loss triangles for a line of business?

American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

PROPERTY VALUES AND TAXES IN SOUTHEAST WISCONSIN

Income Changes in Metro Atlanta: Meandering Through The Research

Income Distribution Database (

Pension Simulation Project Rockefeller Institute of Government

Performance Audit: Financial Indicators November 2014

How to Hit Several Targets at Once: Impact Evaluation Sample Design for Multiple Variables

Church Administration Matters

Marin County Employees Retirement Association

Lending to Specialized Industries

Personal Finance Amortization Table. Name: Period:

Income Inequality, Mobility and Turnover at the Top in the U.S., Gerald Auten Geoffrey Gee And Nicholas Turner

PUBLIC DISCLOSURE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ACT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

C H A P T E R 3 T H E I L L I N O I S R E P O R T

Responses to Otelco Shareholder Comments

Distribution of Households and Total Income by HH Income XL5B V0I 22 Mar, 2017

January 29. Annuities

COUNTY PENSION REFORM Time to Stop Kicking the Can

member updates & announcements

Retirement Ruin and the Sequencing of Returns

I S S U E B R I E F PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE PPI PRESIDENT BUSH S TAX PLAN: IMPACTS ON AGE AND INCOME GROUPS

Lisa Stephenson, Human Resources Management Director

How to Handle FASB s Unfair Value Standard

Attachment B: Examples. Auction Notice California Cap-and-Trade Program and Québec Cap-and-Trade System Joint Auction of Greenhouse Gas Allowances

Webinar Title Q&A the following questions were asked during the two

October Persistent Gaps: State Child Care Assistance Policies Karen Schulman and Helen Blank

Investment Newsletter September 2004

San Mateo County Community College District Enrollment Projections and Scenarios. Prepared by Voorhees Group LLC November 2014.

Savings Services of Local Financial Institutions in Semi-Urban and Rural Thailand

The economic impact of increasing the National Minimum Wage and National Living Wage to 10 per hour

Life Insurance Companies Portfolio Summary Overview

Target Date Glide Paths: BALANCING PLAN SPONSOR GOALS 1

Excel-Based Budgeting for Cash Flows: Cash Is King!

Total Compensation Study Final Report

A PROFILE OF THE FLORIDA GOVERNMENT WORKFORCE Information to Help Improve Florida's Performance and Productivity

Vital Statistics Top of Mind A SURVEY OF SENIOR IN-HOUSE COUNSEL

EstimatingFederalIncomeTaxBurdens. (PSID)FamiliesUsingtheNationalBureau of EconomicResearchTAXSIMModel

METROPOLITAN POLICE SERVICE: GENDER PAY GAP ANALYSIS 2018

INTRODUCTION 1 1. RETIREMENT IN GERMANY 2 2. THE CHANGING NATURE OF RETIREMENT 2 3. THE STATE OF RETIREMENT READINESS 6

Tax Cut by Income Group, Fully Phased-In

Giliberto Levy Commercial Mortgage Performance Index Monitor 4Q 2015 Results and Analysis

TABLE OF CONTENTS C ORRELATION EXPLAINED INTRODUCTION...2 CORRELATION DEFINED...3 LENGTH OF DATA...5 CORRELATION IN MICROSOFT EXCEL...

ICI RESEARCH PERSPECTIVE

DETERMINING AN ENTITY S BID GUARANTEE...

Lecture 2 Describing Data

Project: The American Dream!

Risk-Based Capital (RBC) Reserve Risk Charges Improvements to Current Calibration Method

Volume URL: Chapter Title: Employees' Knowledge of Their Pension Plans

Fact #1: Retirees pay a lot for medical premiums.

STUDY HOW EXPENSIVE IS WORK? Comparison of countries regarding charges and tax rates.

STAB22 section 1.3 and Chapter 1 exercises

SAMPLE REPORT. Call Center Benchmark. In-house/Insourced Call Centers DATA IS NOT ACCURATE!

DCI Data Validation and Quality Issues

SAMPLE REPORT. Contact Center Benchmark DATA IS NOT ACCURATE! In-house/Insourced Contact Centers

The State of African American Homeownership in Oregon, 2000

CABARRUS COUNTY 2008 APPRAISAL MANUAL

Tennessee Workers Compensation Data Calendar Years A Report of Statewide Data for the Tennessee Workers Compensation Advisory Council

CSC Advanced Scientific Programming, Spring Descriptive Statistics

Reporting Average Annual Returns

PROPERTY VALUES AND TAXES IN SOUTHEAST WISCONSIN

SECOND, PLEASE, MILLIONAIRES DON T NEED TAX CREDITS

Report on the Findings of the Information Commissioner s Office Annual Track Individuals. Final Report

Creating a Rolling Income Statement

Two Americas: One Rich, One Poor? Understanding Income Inequality in the United States

Municipal Spending and Taxation in Allegheny County: 2014 Update

OFFICE OF EDUCATION 1111 LAS GALLINAS AVENUE/P.O. BOX 4925 MARY JANE BURKE (415) SAN RAFAEL, CA MARIN COUNTY FAX (415)

COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ACT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

DSPS Allocation Funding Formula Changes. Attachment #1 - Consultation Council March 2016

How to measure and report a gender pay gap

This presentation is part of a three part series.

Socio-Demographic Projections for Autauga, Elmore, and Montgomery Counties:

Understanding Corrections Personnel Costs

MENDOCINO COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION TRUSTEE EDUCATION AND TRAVEL POLICY

SOCIAL SECURITY OFFSETS. Improvements to Program Design Could Better Assist Older Student Loan Borrowers with Obtaining Permitted Relief

20 Years of School Funding Post-DeRolph Ohio Education Policy Institute August 2018

METROPOLITAN POLICE SERVICE: ETHNICITY PAY GAP ANALYSIS Executive Summary

ABCs of Experience Rating

Updated Long-Term Projections for Social Security

ICI RESEARCH PERSPECTIVE

RetirementWorks. Despite its basic approach, however, this calculator does provide some flexibility.

Transcription:

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Scheduled Pension Payments to County Retirees Mendocino County Employees Retirement Association April 1, 2010 - March 31, 2011 May 25, 2010 The Mendocino County Farm Bureau (MCFB) requested several items from the Mendocino County Employees Retirement Association (MCERA) during the spring of 2010 under the Freedom of Information Act. One item was a list of County retirees who receive pensions from MCERA and the total amount of pensions each retiree receives. MCERA provided that list - among several items - to MCFB. This paper provides some summary statistics derived from that list. The payments listed by MCERA did not include payments by MCERA of retiree health insurance. Only County retirees hired before September, 1998 have been eligible for this benefit. The value of that benefit should be added to the values used for this statistical analysis to determine the total value of retirement benefits provided to each retiree. The original list provided the names of each retiree and the yearly amount they are scheduled to receive in the year following April 1, 2010. Apparently 4/1/2010 is the date on which cost of living adjustments are made. No other information was provided. This paper does not identify individuals. The list from MCERA was provided as a pdf document. About half the pdf document contained data that could be directly copied into an Excel spreadsheet for analysis. The other half required several steps to convert the data into a form that could be analyzed in Excel. We believe this was done without changing any of the data, but that is a (slight) possibility. We think such changes are highly unlikely. YourPublicMoney.com produced these statistics. These statistics assume the list obtained from MCERA is accurate.

1 Accuracy of the Data? The report provided by MCERA to the Farm Bureau did not provide a total for pension payments in the 12 months following April 1, 2010. After the data was copied into an Excel spreadsheet the total was determined to be $17,385,101. This graph shows the values reported by MCERA on its last 12 annual audited financial statements as payments of Retirement Benefits, which we believe are the same as Pensions. It also shows the projected value for the 12 month period as calculated from the MCERA report provided to the Farm Bureau. MCERA s fiscal year is July through June. There is a 9 month gap between the last audited value for 2009 and the projected value for the 12 months beginning 4/1/2010. This next graph shows the amount each year s total Pension (Retirement Benefit) payments was more or less than the previous year s payments over these years and the change implicit in MCERA s report provided to the Farm Bureau. After 1999 total Pension payments increased every year from a low of slightly over $400,000 to the last year s growth of over $1.6 million. And yet somehow the total shown on the MCERA report provided to the Farm Bureau suggests a slight decline - the only decline in the past 12 years. M i l l i o n s $20 $18 $16 $14 $12 $10 $- $8 $6 $4 $2 $1,800,000 $1,600,000 $1,400,000 $1,200,000 $1,000,000 $800,000 $600,000 $400,000 $200,000 $- $(200,000) 1998 1999 1999 2000 Twelve Years of Reported Total Pensions Paid One Year Expected per MCERA Report 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Change in Retirement Benefits (Pensions) 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 2009 4/1/10-3/31/11 2009 4/1/10-3/31/11 This seems highly unlikely. I understand the number of retirees is growing, not diminishing. The amount a retiree receives results from an almost iron clad formula. I believe the only variability in the formula is the amount of any cost of living increase which would increase pensions, not lower them. The data provided to the Farm Bureau is not consistent with MCERA s audited financial statements in some way. While it s logically possible some data was dropped in the process of conversion described on the previous page, the numbers were double checked and appear to be the same. Even if the increase was half of what it was the year before, that would still produce an $800,000 increase. We therefore conclude there is most likely a disconnect between MCERA s audited financial statements and the data in the report it has provided to the Farm Bureau. Although we don t know how much the difference is in reality, our best estimate would be that the report provided to the Farm Bureau would show a value of total 12 month payments about $1 million to $1.8 million less than the value that would probably be reported on its audited financial statement.

2 This is not insignificant - it would increase the total shown on the MCERA report provided to MCFB by around 10% or more. However, the rest of this analysis is based on the data in the MCERA report. But this data inconsistency should be clarified. Mendocino County provides Guaranteed (or Defined ) Pension Benefits to its employees. The amount of the pension each retiree receives is determined by a complex formula that provides a set percentage of an employee s highest compensation (not just salary) for each year the employee works for the County. Safety employees (Deputy Sheriffs, etc.) receive a higher percentage for each year s service than General employees. There are several other factors. The California Constitution requires local governments who provide Defined Benefits pensions to pay the amount determined by these formulas to each retiree for the rest of their lives. According to the list provided by MCERA, 967 Mendocino County retirees were scheduled to receive a total of $17.4 million in pension payments in the 12 months after April 1, 2010. The highest amount any individual was scheduled to receive was $119, 643. The average to be received was $17, 978. The median to be received (that is, half the people would receive more - half less) was $13, 809. This table shows the data organized by ranges of total yearly pensions to be received. Each group (row) shows the number of retirees, the total pension payments received by all retirees in each group, and the percentages that group represents of the total number of retirees and the total amount of pensions to be paid. The groups are defined by increments of $10,000. That is, the bottom group receives between $0 and $10,000, the next group between $10,000 and $20,000, and so on. In other words, the people in each group receive more than the value in the first column but less than the value for the row shown immediately above each row. Those at the top are those who receive more than $100,000 a year. Pensioners Pensions Paid Count Percent Total Percent $100,000+ 3 0.3% $329,267 2% 90,000 s 3 0.3% 279,972 2% 80,000 s 5 0.5% 435,310 3% 70,000 s 5 0.5% 371,139 2% 60,000 s 12 1.2% 779,575 4% 50,000 s 18 1.9% 979,646 6% 40,000 s 28 2.9% 1,229,950 7% 30,000 s 73 7.5% 2,499,027 14% 20,000 s 168 17.4% 4,143,587 24% 10,000 s 292 30.2% 4,276,085 25% 0 360 37.2% 2,061,543 12% Total 967 $17,385,101 Five percent of the retirees are scheduled to receive $50,000 or more during this 12 month period. They will receive 18% of the total amount of pensions to be paid. Ninety five percent will receive less than $50,000 - and 82% of the total pensions to be paid.

3 The list received from MCERA provided no detail about how many years each retiree worked for the County, what employee classification they held ( safety, general, etc.), or any of the other factors that determine what each individual s pension payment will be. We assume that probably most people in the lower group or two didn t work many years for the County. The amounts they receive do not reflect what a person who worked for the County for 30 years receive. This table groups retirees into 7 groups each with 138 individuals in rank order according to the pensions they are individually scheduled to receive. The table above was based on ranges of annual pensions paid to individuals, this is based on equal numbers of people. High $119,643 $30,659 $22,057 $16,199 $11,521 $8,233 $4,865 Low 30,687 22,093 16,209 11,610 8,256 4,880 438 Mean 48,045 26,057 18,852 13,754 9,748 6,524 2,900 Median 41,425 26,094 18,843 13,809 9,614 6,460 3,093 Total 6,630,212 3,595,899 2,601,587 1,911,770 1,345,174 900,315 400,145 Percent Total 38% 21% 15% 11% 8% 5% 2% Mean = Average. Median = half the group is above this value, the other half is below. Again - each group contains 138 retirees (except the middle group contains 139). The top group of 138 retirees receives from $30,687 to $119,643 in pensions a year. The average of that group is $48,045, and half of that group receives more than $41,425, half less. This group receives $6.6 million which is over 1/3 of the total pensions paid. The top group of 138 earns nearly 20 times more in total than the lowest group. Observations One must be very careful when describing the meaning of these statistics. This is a very simple data set that doesn t support much analysis. For example, if one says that half of the County s retirees who receive pensions get $13,809 a year or less, that is supported by the data. It is not supportable to say that because half only receive $13,809 a year or less then County pensions are not all that great. How many retirees at the lower end of the pension spectrum receive much larger pensions from other governments, for example? We don t know. It would be much more meaningful in evaluating the value of County pensions for individuals to know years of service, age at retirement, number of years since retirement, job category, disability claims if any, highest compensation on which pensions is based v. history of compensation, amount received from other government and similar pensions, and so on. We can say that the distribution of the annual amount received by individual retirees shows the typical pattern that a relatively small number of people at the top receive a large share of total pension payments, and a large number of retirees at the bottom don t receive very large pension payments.

4 One occasionally hears the suggestion that significant savings would occur if a maximum pension were set - an upper limit on the pension that any retiree can receive. This table shows the savings that would occur given four hypothetical upper limits ranging from $70,000 down to $40,000 a year: Maximum Pension/Yr $70,000 $ 60,000 $50000 $40000 Amount Saved $295,688 $515,263 $874,909 $1,444,859 Percent of Total Saved 1.7% 3.0% 5.0% 8% If pensions were capped at $50,000 a year an annual savings of 5% would occur. I am not advocating anything one way or another; I m simply providing what the numbers show for others to consider when they evaluate options. But it doesn t seem to me that caps would save a lot - not that those amounts are irrelevant. In terms of the overall financial impact on the County, what matters is the total, not what any individual gets. 75% of the total pensions paid are to retirees who receive $40,000 a year or less. In contrast, the top 10% of retirees receive over 30% of the total pensions. Please contact John Dickerson at YourPublicMoney.Com for further information.