An example of where assumptions are clearly disconnected from reality.
See the full story in the Sacramento Business Journal
Previous NorCal Blogs Entries:
http://www.norcalblogs.com/bored/2012/03/pension-liability.php
http://www.norcalblogs.com/bored/2012/01/pension-earnings-dip-amid-gloomy-forecasts.php
This rate of return is important when you consider local pension groups such as the two City of Chico pension groups that had (as of the most recent actuarial report) $63.7 million in unfunded liabilities.
Based upon the assumptions at the time of the report from last fiscal year, the City’s pension contributions were $9.7 million. Plus the City pays the “Employee Portion” to the tune of $1.9 million per year. For a total of $11.6 million per year.
Those pension payment rates were based upon the old 7.75% earnings assumption. The drop to a $7.5% assumption in 2012 was already going to create higher annual payments from the City. If earnings persist below that assumption, then the city (the taxpayers) will absolutely be called upon to pay increased contribution rates to make up for the investment gains that did not materialize.
Among the lowest forecasts for future City pension premiums comes from the League of California Cities, which says “…pension costs for most California municipalities are likely to increase 25 percent or more in the next three years.” Unless the plans are changed, I fear that the League’s estimate is low. But just a 25% increase would be another $3 million annual hit to a City that has already depleted its reserves to critically low levels.
Ok, I’ll ask the obvious question. Why the hell is the city paying the employees portion? Who negotiates their contracts for the city/sits on the other side of the table? Who approves it? The city council?
In my 27 years as a public employee I paid my portion as did everyone else, not my employer! Oh we tried to get them to, but were never successful.
It was explained that I would draw on my contributions first before going into my employers contribution. My portion was calculated out to last for about 12 years. I chose the plan that allowed that if I died with any balance left of my contribution it would go to my survivor.
If I retired at age 60 I’d be 72 before receiving anything from the general pension pool.
If the city and county are paying 100% of every employee’s pension contribution we seriousely need people who will change these contracts now!
Well, it’s pretty obvious why Tommy Lando will do everyhing he possibly can to raise our sales tax.
How else will he get his six figure pension?
Great Question. The city does pay 50% to 100% of the “employee portion” for the vast majority of city employees.
The breakdown can be seen here:
http://www.norcalblogs.com/bored/CalPERs-Cont-2011.png
Who “sits on the other side of the table?”
Another great question. Isn’t it interesting that government employees need union representation to protect them from the benevolent government?
But ultimately, it is city employees who sit on both sides of the table. Council is presented with the results, and approves whatever.
I suspect that we are near the breaking point. Actually, I think that we are near several breaking points. Change is coming. It is inevitable.
So, its another circular firing squad with public staff negotiating against public management who rely on the very same staff to help them get re-elected.
Guess that explains how and why we are in a deep financial ditch.
That change had better happen this November.
Mark this is why so many City Managers and City Police Chiefs have come and exited the City Administration so fast. They all hit that magical bailout age number and fled as fast as they could from being around to take the blame from the inept Council and their followers When the inevitable crash finally hits and the ER gets a hold of it. I watched in 2006 as many county CAO’s throughout Northern California counties, who were leaving in droves when they saw their annual budgets and cash reserves being raided by the CalPers Public Employee Pension plan requirements that Counties were by law forced to financially cover any and all shortfalls the investment side of CalPers did not financially accrue.
The old “I’m leaving to spend more time with my family” was used by everyone of them, when it was really, “Do you guys think I’m stupid enough to stay around and be abused by all the public scorn and verbal accusations most surely to follow by the politicians in command; for reporting the counties losses which were caused by the State Democratic Legislature and Unions whom scammed the Public Sector employees and government municipalities with their unsustainable “A Vote for Cash Program”? A program that is now bankrupting cities all over the State. It is now being reported today that 2 more major and 6 smaller cities are going to file BK in the next month or so.
And our Progressive Liberal City Council members are desperately searching for someone other than themselves to blame. Hence the “Oh if we hadn’t had to pay the $150,000 for the Measure A special election BS”…well then people what about the other $825,000 that was missing…did Measure A rob that too! The answer is “no”. But they are not honest enough to disclose that to their own base of followers. Keep em dumb, and go after the young for more votes” has been their modus operandi for over 30 years now. We need change and good solid leadership. City staff is severely depressed by what they are being put through by the Gang of 5 Liberals on the Council.
If anything I hope the middle class voters will take the time this November to clean house on their majority and let the experts fix this mess they spent us into.
There is one part of this I don’t fully understand. How much is the City of Chico paying for RETIRED employes retirement?
In other words, say someone retired 5 or 15 years ago. How much of that persons retirement is currently paid by the city as opposed the the part paid out of the PERS fund?
This should not be an unexpected event. Cal PERS had to be completely out of their mind to expect an over 7% return on investment during a recession when banks are 0-1% return on savings. PERS investments must be extremely conservative and that means a safe return that will be barely above prime. What kind of idiot makes these projections and suddenly has to say, sorry we came up 600% short of our goal? -Jack
Jim, as I understand it the money paid into PERS covers the long term payouts for retirees, they (city) don’t contribute anything further after the retirement. It would be similar to social security, you pay in a certain amount and it collects interests and this amount in theory covers what you get back in payments each month. -Jack Lee
That is the way that it is supposed to work if the actuarial math works as planned.
But what if it doesn’t?
What if those unfunded liabilities are calculated to be met by investment earnings that do not materialize?
A: The group as a whole must somehow pay more into the group plan to make up the difference.
And this is a very important point. All of the City of Chico’s retirees fall into one of the two City of Chico Groups (period). Each of those group plans financially stand on their own contributions and investment earnings.
Now…. What if we do have investment earnings that fall below the levels necessary to maintain the payouts to retireees. And at the same time we have shrinking numbers of employees actively working and paying into the group plan?
Yea…. I’ll be nice here and say that it would be “problematic”.
Thanks Mark you summed it up brilliantly. -Jack
Calpers is a defined Benefit Pension plan. It isn’t an “insurance” model like SS but an “investment: model.
http://www.calpers.ca.gov/index.jsp?bc=/investments/assets/home.xml
This makes the democrat case against individual retirement accounts for younger social security recipients a little disingenuous. If investment in private sector business is a positive for public sector pensions it should be a positive for everyone.
The dirty little secret is that government robs from SS funds to pay for other things. Private accounts would mean less money for government and greater opportunity for private sector employees. Public sector employees should be financing private accounts as well.
This government taking of American workers compensation, money we earn, HAS GOT TO STOP! Public sector democrat workers need to reconsider their disingenuous support for the leadership of their party on this issue.
Thanks Mark, that raises 2 more questions;
Are the Cities liable for the shortage since the invest returns aren’t enough to pay for the defined benefit?
Who pays for the retirement health care?
Jim…… Jack here, the healthcare is normally not included in safety retirement, unless the retiree wishes to pick up the cost. Generally that cost is so high they wouldn’t do it. Better to get their own plan. Yes, the cities must make up the contribution cost if the costs rise and PERS needs more money to keep the plan solvent. They are also allowed by the State Constitution to take money from the general fund if the retirement fund fall below a minimum dollar amount to keep it solvent.
Not that long ago, back in the 1990s, there was a huge surplus of funds in CALPERS Gov. Pete Wilson tried to raid it to balance the states budget.
http://articles.latimes.com/1991-06-19/business/fi-1049_1_state-retired-system
Gov. Pete Wilson’s proposal to use funds from the California Public Employees Retirement System to help close the state’s $14.3-billion budget deficit raises serious questions for beneficiaries of the fund as well as other public employees nationwide. The following are key questions about the fund and what the governor proposes.
What is the California Public Employees Retirement System?
Also known as CalPERS, it is the nation’s largest public employees’ pension fund, with an investment portfolio valued at $62.4 billion. Its beneficiaries include state workers, some school employees and local government workers. About one-quarter of those are retired.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1389812.html
http://calpensions.com/2009/04/04/a-kinder-gentler-raid-on-calpers-funds/
Jim, My district provided medical care to employees who were hired prior to 1982.
Any employee hired 1982 and later are not covered for medical and have to get their own coverage. CalPers offers a group plan.
Dental and vision were never provided, always the employees responsibility after retiring.
Also, every employee is required to enroll in Medicare at age 65,
It seems that our public employees have a vested interest in making sure that business thrives…and yet they vote with the party that constantly seeks to discredit, control, and oppress business.
Are they just too dumbed down to know where all the wealth is created for their pension fund AND their salaries? Do you think they are beginning to see the light now?
Class warfare sure does mess things up.
Jim writes: “Are the Cities liable for the shortage since the invest returns aren’t enough to pay for the defined benefit?”
That is a set of different situational questions being hotly contested in the courts at this moment. Outcome unknown.
Jim writes: “Who pays for the retirement health care?”
The city does not pay directly for any retiree health benefits. For a couple of groups the City does contribute to a retiree health care trust fund…. which is a story all its own.
I’m playing with the numbers on a retirement calculator, A city worker earning $100,000 a year retiring at age 50 with 90%, would require an investment of $31,957 each year assuming a return of 7.1%.
So is that what the city is contributing for each public safety worker?
You did a pretty good ob on your math in that hypothetical example.!
Here are the two City of Chico actuarial reports from the close of Fiscal Year 2010-2011:
Misc Employees:
http://tinyurl.com/8885dtq
Public Safety:
http://tinyurl.com/82z77pu
You can see that in public safety the employer contribution rate is 31.006%. Which would amount to $31,006 employer contribution rate.
Plus the City pays all of the 9% employee portion for CPOA (Police) and 7 of the 9 percentage points of the employee portion for IAFF (Fire)
While this table appears to be a bit outdated, it gives you a quick summary:
http://www.norcalblogs.com/bored/CalPERs-Cont-2011.png
Your next follow question is likely to be on the total benefits costs load as a percentage of straight time payroll costs. It varies a bit, but in public safety the average is in the neighborhood of 62-64%.
A fascinating thing to me is that it excludes all forms of paid time off (vacation, sick, etc, etc) Whereas my experience in Corporate American we included the value of paid time off in our benefit cost calculation.