My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Pension Board Minutes 10.23.18
Public Access
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Pension Board
>
2018
>
Minutes
>
Pension Board Minutes 10.23.18
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/2/2019 4:12:22 PM
Creation date
5/2/2019 4:12:20 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
importance of funding at l <br />and going backwards. He thinks non-uniformed funding is probably okay. <br /> <br />do we address the challenges <br />actuary so he can make a sound recommendation to work on getting us to fully funded at some <br />point. t see any conflict with the City Manager requesting the <br />data from the actuary. <br /> <br />Ms. Krawzik discussed open versus closed amortization period and that the City is under an <br />open period which means the unfunded liability is spread out over 30 years. A closed period <br />would mean the unfunded liability would have to be paid off in 30 years; whereas an open <br />period is refinanced each year for another 30 year period so the funding amounts decrease. <br /> <br />Council Liaison Remarks <br />Council Liaison Steve McMahon commented that when he was on the Pension Board it was <br />position to pay the bill and if not in full, be able to explain why. He thinks Mr. Rose is saying <br />when we have the explanation of why, we still want to have a plan that moves us in a direction <br />and lessens the impact across the board with all of the things they have to <br />accomplish. Consensus on the Council is to get to fully funded, whether they can and how is <br /> <br /> <br />Member McCarthy commented on the increased pension liabilities coming in the future due in <br />part to the compensation study to get employees up to market, yet extra funds have not been <br />put into the pension plan for the existing liabilities. He been in front of Council two- <br />three times to ask for more money to decrease the liability and then the City put in only <br />$918,000 when the actuary says we need to put in $1.6 million; we need to get closer to the <br />number and putting in another $100,000 or $200,000 would help move in the right direction <br />because the numbers are not moving now. Member McCarthy further commented that the City <br />is receiving the Prop P funds and he realizes there are other demands for that money such as a <br />police station, but we need to meet current obligations. <br /> <br />Council Member McMahon commented that he gets what Member McCarthy is saying and as <br />soon as Prop P passed everyone came and asked for a of the slice Prop P pie in the name of <br />public safety, but he agrees we need to figure out what we can pay towards the pension with <br />Prop P funds and move the needle in the right direction. He further stated that when he was the <br />Pension Board Chair, he went before Council to ask for more pension funding and it happened <br />We do need to pay our bill <br />Pension Board members commented that the plan would be in worse condition if that <br />contribution had not been made. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.