My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Pension Board Minutes 5.14.19
Public Access
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Pension Board
>
2019
>
Minutes
>
Pension Board Minutes 5.14.19
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/11/2019 2:19:37 PM
Creation date
9/11/2019 2:19:36 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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
Member McCarthy made a motion to adopt a 15-year closed amortization period for the non- <br />uniformed retirement plan. The motion was seconded by Member Winker and approval carried <br />unanimously. <br /> <br />Member McCarthy made a motion to adopt a 15-year closed amortization period for the police <br />and fire retirement plan. The motion was seconded by Member Isenberg and approval carried <br />unanimously. <br /> <br />10-Year Actuarial Projections <br />Mr. Ribble provided a report and an overview of 10 year projections of employer contribution <br />rates and funding status. It was determined that the information provided was not what was <br />requested by City Manager Rose. City Manager Rose restated the request for City estimated <br />contribution amounts that would be required by the city for funding the plans at different levels <br />80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, and 100%. Mr. Ribble will revisit this request with the City Manager Rose <br />and Mrs. Howze to obtain the requested information outside of the meeting. <br /> <br />Attorney Kara Krawzik asked Mr. Ribble if the actuarial calculations are such that the intent is to <br />eventually get to 100%. Mr. Ribble confirmed that is the intentto aim to get to 100%. <br /> <br />City Manager Rose commented that Mayor and Council has to divvy up limited funds and from a <br />practical sense, what governmental organizations in Missouri are at 100%--not many, if any. <br />Additionally, we can all agree that we want to ensure we do a good job at making sure that <br />employees that have provided significant time and service are taken care of in retirement so we <br />have to figure out the amount the city can afford to ensure we have a healthy pension fund. <br /> <br />actuarial standards of practice that the aim is to get to 100% funded a <br />actuarial required contributions need to be and whether or not the City decides to put that in is <br />its decision. <br /> <br />Mr. Ribble stated that their actuarial requirement is to calculate based on the funding policies <br />set by the Board to calculate contribution requirement that is a funded amount that if paid over <br />time would get to 100%. <br /> <br />Mr. McCarthy stated that if the objective is always 80% then the Board has to make an 8.13% <br />return on assets to try to keep up with the 100% liability so they would never reach 8.13% and <br />will fall further behind because the City is not funding to the proper level. <br /> <br />Council is trying to understand the facts and determine what the City can afford because no <br />to them that if they want to fund it at 80, 85 or 90 percent, this is the amount they would need to <br />allocate out of the budget each year. <br />Ѝ <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.