Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />UNIVERSITY CITY COUNCIL <br />STUDY SESSION <br />5th floor of City Hall <br />6801 Delmar <br />January 28, 2013 <br />5:30 p.m. <br /> <br />th <br />The City Council Study Session was held in the Council Chamber on the 5 floor of City <br />Hall, on January 28, 2013. Mayor pro tem Arthur Sharpe, Jr. called the Study Session to <br />order at 5:33 p.m. In addition to the Mayor pro tem Sharpe, the following members of the <br />Council were present: <br />Ms. Paulette Carr <br />Mr. Terry Crow <br />Mr. Byron Price <br />Mr. Michael Glickert <br /> <br />Mr. Stephen Kraft and Mayor Shelley Welsch were excused. <br /> <br />Also in attendance was City Manager Lehman Walker. <br /> <br />Mayor pro tem Sharpe opened the Study Session by asking if there were any changes to <br />the Council’s agenda for the evening. No changes were requested. <br /> <br />Mr. Walker presented Mr. Stephen Siepman, an actuary from Buck Consultants. <br /> <br />Mr. Siepman answered a number of questions previously proposed by Council. <br /> <br />1) In calculating the City’s pension contribution, what were the assumptions that were <br />controlled by forces outside of City Council or their pension boards or any changes <br />anticipated and what were the assumptions controlled by City Council. Connected <br />to this was the question, what were the assumptions controlled by City Council and <br />its boards in calculating the City’s pension contribution. <br /> <br />Mr. Siepman stated that in most cases the assumption were joint where there was <br />advice from the actuary plus reasonable beliefs of the board or City. <br /> <br />Those assumptions led by an actuary were: <br /> <br /> mortality rates <br /> <br /> disability rates <br /> <br />Joint assumptions were: <br /> <br /> the interest rate of 6½ percent which was currently being used <br /> <br /> salary increase assumption which was based on a 3% annual salary increase, <br />using a long term assumption <br /> <br /> methodology being used was a cost method requiring an actuary’s advice <br /> <br /> smoothing techniques to avoid spikes up or down <br /> <br /> number of years to amortize any underfunding that might exist at a particular <br />point in time. The number of years to amortize would be a City’s decision. <br />1 <br /> <br />