City of Livingston California Public Employees Retirement System

City of Livingston California Public Employees’ Retirement System (Cal. PERS) Discount Rate Change

Who Is Cal. PERS ? • The California Public Employees' Retirement System (Cal. PERS), established in 1932, is an agency in the California executive branch that manages pension and health benefits for public employees, retirees, and their families. • As of 6/30/2016 $301. 98 Billion in assets – In the top ten in the • As of 6/30/2015 3, 007 contracted agencies and 1. 8 million U. S. employees

Why Is City of Livingston Involved With Cal. PERS ? • City contracted in October 1975 with California State Employees’ Retirement System – now California Public Employees’ Retirement System (Cal. PERS) - to manage funds and administer retirement benefits

Cal. PERS Funding Model – 6/30/2016

The Problem • More cash is going out than coming in • Actual Investment Returns Have Not Matched Projected (Discount Rate) • Estimated return over the next ten years is 5. 8% to 6. 2%

The Problem - Continued • Fixed income returns have declined – investments shifted to equities and real estate – more volatility and risk • Overall funded status of plan is 73% ( As of June 30, 2015) Funded status at 6/30/2007 was 101% ( Market asset value – benefits earned by employees) • Actual rate of return and discount rate should match in order to reach 100% funded status

What Did The Cal. PERS Board Do? • On December 21, 2016 Cal. PERS board voted to lower the discount rate from 7. 5% to 7% over the next three years. • This incremental lowering of the discount rate will give employers more time to prepare the changes in the employer contribution costs.

What Is A Discount Rate ? • The assumed rate of future investment returns used to calculate future benefit liabilities and current contribution levels • Higher assumed discount rate - lower future liabilities and contributions • Lower assumed discount rate - higher future liabilities and contributions

Why Is This Issue Important ? • It affects cost of retirement benefits • Core cost of the City’s budget • It is a key component of negotiated salary and benefit packages

Cal. PERS Actual and Discount Rates Actual Investment Returns 6/30/2016 1 -Year Return 3 – Year Return 6. 9% 0. 6% 5 – Year Return 6. 8% 10 – Year Return 5. 1% Discount Rate (Assumed Investment Return) 6/30/2012 7. 50% Net 6/30/2010 7. 75% Net 6/30/2002 8. 25% Net

Cal. PERS Solution • Lower the assumed rate of return in 2018/19 – which increases contributions – and amortize increase over 20 years Fiscal Year for Required Contribution Discount Rate 2016/17 7. 50% 2017/18 7. 50% 2018 -19 7. 375% 2019 -20 7. 25% 2020 -21 7. 00%

Phase-In Schedule Year Impact Year % of Ultimate Payment 1 2018 -19 20% 2 2019 -20 40% 3 2020 -21 60% 4 2021 -22 80% 5 - 16 2022 -23 thru 203334 100% 17 2034 -35 80% 18 2035 -36 60% 19 2037 -38 40% 20 2038 -39 20%

Impact On City Of Livingston Discount Rate Unfunded Liability Public Safety Miscellaneous Total 7. 50% $1. 34 M $2. 78 M $4. 12 M 7. 00% $1. 91 M $3. 72 M $5. 63 M Increase $. 57 M $. 94 M $1. 51 M Funded Ratio 78. 2% 82. 2% 72. 9% 76. 4% 5. 4% to 5. 8% Amortization Period 8 – 30 Years 20 Years

Impact On City of Livingston Fiscal Year Citywide Cost General Fund Cost 2017/18 - Current $595, 000 $352, 000 2018/19 – First Year Low High $676, 500 $693, 000 Low High 2022/23 – Full Phase-In $1, 002, 500 $1, 082, 000 Low High % Increase 17/18 to 22/23 68% 82% Low High $401, 000 Low $596, 500 Low 69% $411, 100 High $645, 200 High 83%

Impact on General Fund • In 2018/19 Cal. PERS cost will require about a 1% increase in General Fund revenue • In 2022/23 Cal. PERS cost will require about a 5% increase in General Fund revenue • Average increase in General Fund revenue over last five years is 6%

Does This Solve The Problem ? • Cal. PERS staff have stated this will help lessen the gap but not close it • Cal. PERS and their outside experts estimate a 5. 8% 6. 2% average return over the coming decade • This issue will be revisited in a year and Cal. PERS has indicated the discount rate will probably need to go lower

Questions