RPVCCA_SR_2010_11_04_10_Pension_Revision_ReportMEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
STEVE WOLOWICZ
NOVEMBER 4,2010
PENSION REVISION
RECOMMENDATION
(1)Select and retain a retirement plan consulting firm to assist in the design of an
alternative defined contribution retirement program similar to a standard 401 (k)plan
and cost-saving suggestions to modify the current defined benefit plan.
(2)Appoint a two-member subcommittee to (a)work with City Staff in the selection of
the consulting firm.(b)Work with the consultant in the analysis and
recommendation of the new retirement plan,and (c)By January 31,2011 based
on that analysis submit a recommendation for the new pension plan to the City
Council
(3) Based on the information provided by the consultant and subcommittee The City
Council will deliberate and select a new retirement plan for all new employees hired
after July 1,2011.
It is important to note that no part of this recommendation is to change any part of the
current plan for existing employees.
BACKGROUND
Over the last decade the City's annual costs for the existing defined benefit retirement plan
has dramatically increased.For the fiscal year ended June 30,2010 the base cost was
$814,205 which excludes an additional $1,661,376 paid to the "side-fund liability."The
annual cost alone is $679,204 or 504%higher than the expense amount recorded during
the fiscal year ended June 30,2000.(See comparative costs on Exhibit A and Financial
Statement Pension footnote on Exhibit B).
Our City's problem with the increasing retirement costs is similar to most all governmental
entities sponsoring defined benefit retirement plans.These significant increases are
10-1
primarily not due to increases in the number of participating personnel,but rather in the
underlying nature of the defined benefit plans.As described in the CalPERS Member
booklet "Three factors are used to calculate your service retirement:Service Credit,Benefit
Factor,and Final Compensation."The service credit is earned for each year of partial year
worked for the sponsoring employer (in our case as a participating CalPERS entity).The
Benefit Factor is the percentage of pay to which employees are entitled for each year of
service.That percentage is determined by age of the employee at retirement,which was
contracted by the City.This formula is commonly quoted in terms of a percent and number.
For our City that formula is stated 2.5%(at)55 years of age.
The funding policy is described in the Notes of Financial Statements in the annual CAFR
(Exhibit B).As with all defined benefit (DB)plans,the City's contributions decline when
investment returns rise and increase when investment returns decline.
As explained by the Governor's Special Advisor for Jobs and Economic Growth,David
Crane:"When promises for deferred compensation such as pensions and retiree health
care are made to employees,sufficient monies are suppose to be set aside at the same
time and invested in order to grow large enough to meet the promises.The amount of
money to be set aside is a function of how successfully that set-aside money is expected to
be invested.The greater the assumed investment return,the lower the set-aside when the
promise is made,and vice-versa.If those assumed investment earnings arise,all's well.
But if not,money must be added in the future to meet the promise ...At some point such
promises come due and that's when their costs are revealed ...By assuming unattainable
investment returns,the state has been making promises but underfunding them,assuring
massive demands on future general funds."The City has been exposed to the same
problem resulting in the skyrocketing costs during the last decade.
However,the over-assumption of investment returns during periods of slow growth is not
the only reason why the City's pension costs are now so high and disproportionate to
covered payroll.
The rising and disproportionate costs related to DB plans were recognized in the private
sector beginning in the late 1980's.The trend away from defined benefit programs began
at that time and has continued to today.The rapidly increasing annual costs and the growth
of unfunded vested benefits are the primary reasons for changing from DB plans.By the
late 1990's,there were virtually no defined benefit plans used by most small and mid-sized
businesses.In 1987 even the Federal Government introduced a defined contribution (DC)-
type plan which depends in great part on employee contributions.
Defined benefit plans remain in place only in very large public companies and
governmental entities which have a strong union presence.
Ultimately the amounts of those ultra-large unfunded liabilities were cited as a major factor
in the financial failures of large business entities including various airlines and General
Motors.The failures of several significant governmental entities are similarly attributed to
the runaway costs combined with off-balance sheet unfunded liabilities.
10-2
A related administrative issue surfaced several years ago when CalPERS announced their
decision to discontinue disclosure of the City's specific amount of the unfunded vested
benefits.That along with other unilateral actions by CaIPERS,has reminded us of periodic
difficulties in dealing with such a large entity as a service provider.
During the decade or so after the City adopted the DB plan,the costs were relatively
nominal due to the investment rate assumptions included in the plan.However,as costs
increased staff responded to council concerns by stating thatthe rising costs were merely
the "balancing"of the favorable investment rates that were assumed during those earlier
periods.However,the continual acceleration of costs has long offset any of the assumed
benefits in the earlier years.
When pension reform was initially proposed in 2004,those Council members opposed to
changes cited a number of arguments.These included assertions that any decrease in
benefits or decrease in City contributions would expose the City to organization by unions,
exposure to increased staff turnover and difficulty in hiring future employees.Further many
City Staff joined them in the argument that the superior retirement benefits were need to
offset the wage differentials compared with private industry.During the last half-dozen
years the condition of our economy,the continuing 12.5%unemployment in California,and
uncertainty of long-term stability in the private sector render those prior arguments moot or
subject them to revaluation in light ofthe increased pension costs during the same period.
CURRENT REFORM TRENDS
A "two-tier"system
Each week we are learning of new pension reform proposals.Virtually all of the new plans
are specifically designed for new employees who are not now covered by the existing
defined benefit plan.This is commonly referred as creating a "two-tiered"plan.When first
proposed to RPV in 2004,most existing City staff and the majority of the voting council
members stated such a two-tiered plan would create an unequal benefit structure.
However,as we have seen during the last year,this concept has been accepted by very
large employee unions dealing with the State and Orange County.They too recognize that
pension reform must be started at some time and this is proving to be an appropriate time
and manner to initiate the process.The newly approved two-tier State plans include the
California Highway Patrol.
Talks or action to reduce pension costs,including the adoption of two-tier systems are also
underway in local government agencies.For example,the City of South San Francisco has
adopted a two-tier plan.The City of Ventura has approved a two-tier plan,subject to
negotiation of the details with employees.At least eight California cities and one County
have pension measures on this month's ballot.Proposals in Bakersfield and Menlo Park
would create two-tier systems with lower benefit formulas.
Action by the State of California
10-3
On October 20th the Governor signed SB 867 and SBX 622 which implements some major
pension objectives.There were three major objectives reforms included in this action:(1)
Rolls back expansion of pension benefits in 1999 under SB 400 will be rolled back for new
employees.(s)Ended pension spiking by requiring employee retirement rates to be based
on the highest consecutive three year average salary as opposed to the single highest
year.(3)Increases transparency by requiring CalPERS to notify the Governor and others
any time it adopts contribution rates.Also the Governor negotiated pension reforms with
seven significant state employee unions resulted in retaining the basic structure of the
existing defined benefit programs but significantly reducing the percentage benefits and
extending various retirement ages.
During conversation with the Governor's principal advisor on these pension reforms,David
Crane,he recommended that the recently passed plan in Orange County should be
considered as an improvement over the state negotiated changes.
Action by Orange County
Adopted in May 2010 by Orange County,their new plan has been recognized as being
innovative in dealing with the powerful Orange County Employee Association (Union).This
is a hybrid defined benefit/defined contribution retirement plan (see article on Exhibit C and
their Agenda Staff Report Exhibit D),which required special legislation approved by the
State Legislature.
It is very important to note that the plan adopted by Orange County required state
legislation.The format of this plan is not available to cities -however the innovative hybrid
plan and underlying assumptions could be modified and considered by cities.
I spoke with the two Orange county Supervisors most responsible for these changes,
Supervisor Bill Campbell,and supervisor John Moorlach (who is also a CPA)along with the
county's Director of Human resources Carl Crown.
It was surprising to learn from the two supervisors that while they were pleased with the
plan which their County had adopted given our City's circumstances they recommended
that we pursue a defined contribution-type program similar to a 401 (k)plan.
Actions by Cities
While there is a great deal of change discussed by cities,the changes thus far adopted by
cities has been to modify now existing defined benefit plans through lowering benefit
formulas and extending retirement ages for new employees.
CONCLUSION
Again,there is to be no change to the existing defined benefit plan for current employees.
Given our City's increased pension costs during the last decade we should retain pension
10-4
consultants to help us design a DC plan similar to a 401 (k)pension plan to be adopted only
for new employees beginning July 1,2011.
AL TERNATIVES
Retain pension consultants to help modify the existing defined benefit program in a manner
similar to those modifications adopted by other cities and even consider some of the hybrid
features adopted by Orange County.
Make no change.
10-5
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
PENSION COSTS
Exhibit A
Add'!.side I PensionIPaidtoside-fund Change I Change Covered cost %of
Fiscal year Base cost fund liability payment Pension cost Amount percent Payroll Payroll
2009-10 $814,205 $180,000 $1,481,376 $2,475,581 $967,277 64%$4,630,020 53%
2008-09 $808,304 $700,000 $1,508,304 $761,121 102%$4,650,530 32%
2007-08 $747,183 $747,183 $115,963 18%$4,239,406 18%
2006-07 $631,220 $631,220 $40,629 7%$3,490,159 180/;
2005-06 $590,591 $590,591 $179,179 44%$3,621,822 16%
2004-05 $411,412 $411,412 $143,728 54%$3,663,957 11%
2003-04 $267,684 $267,684 $100,261 60%$3,242,093 80/;
2002-03 $167,423 $167,423 $2~,640 16%$2,904,427 6%
2001-02 $144,783 $144,783 $11,323 8%$2,455,956 6%
2000-01 $133,460 --$133,460 I $(1,541)-1%$2,086,935 6%----_.
135,0011999-00 $135,001 $$2,102,848
1998·99 $
.-
2,064,127 -.._---~-
na
----Totals
$1,481,376 i $last 10-years $4,716,265 $880,000 7,077,641 $34,985,305 20%
H;IMy OocumenlslRPV City Councll\penslon IssueslPayroll,pension,health Insurance.xls 1111120103:23 PM
10-6
I EXHIBIT B
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
JUNE 30,2009
NOTE #7 -PENSION PLAN
Plan Description
The City provides a defined benefit pension plan that,includes retirement and
disability benefits,annual cost-of-Iiving adjustments,and death benefits to plan
members and beneficiaries.The City participates in the Miscellaneous 2.5%at
55 Risk Pool of the California Public Employee's Retirement System (CaIPERS),
a cost-sharing,multi-employer public employee defined benefit pension plan
administered by CaIPERS.CalPERS provides retirement and disability benefits,
annual cost-of-Iiving adjustments,and death benefits to plan members and
beneficiaries.State statutes,within the Public Employees'Retirement Law,
establish benefit provisions and other requirements.The City selects optional
benefit provisions from the benefit menu by contract with CalPERS and adopts
those benefits through local ordinance.Copies of the CalPERS annual financial
report may be obtained from the CalPERS Executive Office at 400 P Street,
Sacramento,California 95814 or downloaded from their website at
www.calpers.gov.
Funding Policy
,..-'
The contribution requirements of plan members are established by State statute
and the employer contribution rate is established and amended by CaIPERS.
Active City employees are required to contribute 8%of their annual covered
salary.The City pays 6.5%of the contribution for all the full-time positions,and
1%of the'contribution for part-time employees.The City is required to contribute
the actuarially determined remaining amounts necessary to fund the benefits for
its members.The FY08-09 rate was 15.275%of covered payroll.The City's
contributions to CalPERS for the years ending June 30,2009,2008 and 2007
,were $1,508,304,$747,183 and $631,220,respectively,and were equal to the
reqUired contribution for each year.
As a result of having less than 100 active members as of June 30,2003,the City
was reqUired to participate in a risk pool.The City's pooled employer contribution
rate is the same as the stand-alone employer contribution rate.At the time of
joining the mandatory pooled plan,CalPERS established an employer side fund
to account for the difference between the funded status of the pooled plan and
the funded status of the City's plan.The amortization of the side fund is included
in the determination of the City's annual required contribution.
The funded status of the pooled plan may be obtained from CaIPERS.
_,See independent auditors'report.
59
10-7
Exhibit C
Reprinted with permission Irorn-
.\
Pension Funds
Orange County offers a combo plan to new union employees
less.In addition.they mllst work
until age 65 to get tbeir Cull benefit
payment.Those sticking WiUl the
originnl DB-only approach milY
retire with full benefits at 55.
Benefit to county
MI'.Campbell said that change
also benefits the county because
"the COWlty can retain employees
10 years longer <md thereby reduce costs
associated with training and recmitment."
Costs could be reduced further II existing
employees are given the same cllOlces that
new employees get,something both the
county-and.the union support,So fur;howev-
er.that move has been blocked by the
Internal Reve!)ue Service,
"Mandatory employee contdbutions to
public employee retirement plans are ·con-
sidered 'picked up'employer contributions
for federal income tax purposes:said MJ."
Campbell."The employee is not taxed when
the contributions are made but is taxed on
the benefits whell (they)al'e received:
The ms is questioning if allo\ving CUl1'ent
employees a one-time chance to s\vitah to
the new plan "wUI cause their contributions
to lOse tlleir pre-tali:status and whether this
·Ioss·will apply to all ...current employees ...
induding those who do not elect the lower
formula:he said.
Mr.Campbell said U,e county has been
discussing this issue \vith Ule ms since
September 2009.He hopes for a ruling later
this yeal·.
The new shllcture reflects employees'
evolving attitudes about work and retire-
ment,Ms.Major said."If I'm 25.I don't Irnow
if l'U be working·in Ihe same place llUtil I'm
55:she said."People move around a lot
more.A defined benefit plan Is the most reli-
able (retirement investment),but some peo-
ple want more control over their money"
U,rougl1 a defined contrihution plan._
plans with a clefined contribution
component "present lower.long-
term liabilities for the employer."
The problem,.howevel:is usage.
Mr.Brainard said he believes
most new employees select u'l1di-
tional DB plans over other types.
The new plan Ls unique to
California.and requir.ed passage William Campbell
of a state law last year to author-
I7.C it.The county and the union agreed to
the plan in June 2009;enrollment began
last month.
Neither Mr.Cmi1pbeLl nor Lisa Major,
assistant general manager for the union,
could recall WllO made the first move toward
proposing tbe new approach wben urAon
and county negotia~rs starting discussil).g a
new contract in the spring of 2009.
"It seemed like we came to it at about the
same time:Ms.Major said said.
"It was both of us:said MI'.Campbell."We
wanted to recJuce the (DB)plan for new
employees.The llnion wanted to give new
employees a choice."
The defined contribution pOl1ion was
developed -and \vill be administered -by
TIAA-CREF;NewYol'k.
The DC component "works in tandem
\vith,raUler than sUPI,lements"the defined
benefit plan.said Ridlard HIller.vice presl-
dellt for gO\'Clllment and religiou.~markets
at Tl':AA-CREF."The overall pension plan is
structured to help employees replace 70%or
more.(jf their income in retirement.The DB
(formula)doesn't accompUsh that 011 ils own.
so Ule DC plan is layered on to help achieve
the necessmy income in retirement,"
The standard employer match is 50%on
up to 2')(,of Ule employee's conlrlbutiOll.In
the plan's first year of operation.howevec
the malch Is 100%on up to 2%of the employ-
ee contribution.On the defined benefit side,
those.choosing to enroll in tlie DC plan Will
make a smaller contribution to the DB plan.
In exchange.the benefit payment \vill be
By Robel't Steyer
Orange County.Calif.,has .adopted a novel
retirement plan inwhich new union employ-
ees cun choose between participating only in
the $4.7 billion defined benefit plun,or par-
ticipating in both the DB and a new defined
contribution plan.
Those choosing the combination pay a
lower contribution to the defined benefit
plan,but also get reduced benefits.On tIle
DC side.they get a small employer matc1L
AlUlOUgl1 some stale govemment plan
sponsors and a few municipal ones offer
defined contribution .pJans.Orange County's
version -where all new employees partici-
pate in the defined benefit pian -is rare.
More common approaches include dosing
the DB plan to·new employees und allowing
them to participate only in a DC plan,or giv-
ing them a choice between a defined benefit
or a defined \.'Olltribution plan.
An analysis last year by the Center for
Retirement Research at BOStOl1 College
found that 18 of 126 mostly state plans stud-
ied had some form of DC component for new
employees,said Jean-Pierre Aubry.a
resem'd1 associate at the center.
In Orange County.the Orange County
Employees Retirement System,Santa Ana.
administers tbe plan,but the ne\v approach
\VdS developed by·cxecutives of the union -
the Orange County Employees Ass.ociation
-and management.
Offidllls from both sides say the new
design will reduce the county's defined ben-
efit plan ell."'Penses.
William Campbell,vice chairman of the
Orange County Board of Supervisors in
Santa Ana,said an actuary hired by the
COWlty caLC\llated the new plan coulel cut
annual costs by about 2%over time,assum-
ing half of the new employees choose the
combination of a DB und 11 DC plan.
Keith Brainard.research director for the
National Association of Stale Retirement
Administrators.Baton Rouge.La ..noted that
Th~l'l1blisher"s snle of lhis l""'lilll do~s liD!.cOlL.linne Of illlpl)'nn)'cndorsclll~lllor sllOlIsurshi)lof nn)'prodUCI.SC\'\'kc ur organi1.nliull.
C:1~lin CUIlIJllIlIli.'illinns 7:~2.i:l:t1)56U.DO NOT lmrr ott AI:mR IHiPIUJ\-rS.RI(I'IWI)UCI10l'S ARI~NOT I'I~RMrnlm.i':illiH
.r.:.Emirc GnlllclllS copyrighl II)'Cmin ClIlllllllllli."liuIlS Inc.Allligills rc'~I'\·cd.
10-8
EXHIBIT D •Page 1
Steve Wolowicz
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
SUbject:
Attachments:
Steve
Crown,Carl [carl.crown@ocgov.com]
Thursday,August 12,20109:23 AM
Stevew@rpv.com
Johnson,Michael [03]
1.62%@ 65 formula
1.62 ASR.doc
Attached is the item that went to the Board to adopt the new retirement formula.It is a good
description of the plan and issues surrounding the tax implications for current employees.Let me
know if you need anything else and,as discussed,I would be happy to meet with you to discuss
further..
Carl Crown
Human Resources Director
County of Orange,Ca.
(714)834-2836
«1.62 ASR.doc»
1
10-9
EXHIBIT D -Page 2
Agenda Item
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
ASR Control 10-000296
MEETING DATE:
LEGAL ENTITY TAKING ACTION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DISTRICT(S):
SUBMITTING AGENCYIDEPARTMENT:
DEPARTMENT CONTACT PERSON(S):
04/20/10
Board of Supervisors
All Districts
Human Resources Department (Approved)
Robert J.Franz (714)834-4304
Carl H.Crown (714)834-2836
SUBJECT:Approve Resolution for "1.62%at 65"Retirement Formula
CEO CONCUR
Concur
Budgeted:N/A
COUNTY COUNSEL REVIEW
Approved Agreement(s)and
Resolution(s)
Current Year Cost:N/A
CLERK OF THE BOARD
Discussion
3 Votes Board Majority
Annual Cost:N/A
Staffing Impact:No #of Positions:
Current Fiscal Year Revenue:N/A
Funding Source:N/A
Prior Board Action:N/A
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Sole Source:N/A
1.Approve and adopt the resolution implementing the"1.62%at 65"retirement formula as detailed in
Exhibit A.
2.Approve and adopt Side Letter Agreements between the County and applicable labor groups
implementing the retirement formula election as to new employees,as detailed in Exhibits B,C
andD.
3.Approve and adopt the Amendment to the Personnel and Salary Resolution,adopting the election
of the 111.62%at 65 11 retirement formula for unrepresented employees,as detailed in Exhibit E.
SUMMARY:
In an effort to address increasing pension costs,the County initiated steps towards implementing a new
lower retirement formula n 1.62%at 65 11 combined with a Defmed Contribution Plan.The implementation
ofthe proposed retirement program required legislation to be approved through the State legislative
process.On October 11,2009,Senate Bill 752 was approved,which permits in Orange County,the board
of supervisors,or the governing body of a district within the county,by resolution adopted by majority
vote,to require certain employees to make a written election between two specified retirement formulas.
Page 1
10-10
EXHIBIT 0 -Page 3
The lower formula,combined with the Defined Contribution Plan will result in a significantly lower cost
to the County and to the employees than the current 2.7%at 55 retirement formula.Approval and
adoption of the Resolution before your honorable Board today will allow the County to implement the
new "1.62%at 65"retirement formula.
MOUs with the Orange County Employees Association (OCEA),Association of Orange County Workers
(AOCW)and the International Union of Operating Engineers (JUOE)currently contemplate offering to
both current and new employees the election between the two retirement formulas.Issues have arisen
with respect to the possible tax impact of implementing the retirement formula election for current
employees.Until these issues are resolved,we believe it is best to proceed with implementing the
election for new employees only.We have entered into Side Letter Agreements with each of these
collective bargaining associations whereby they acknowledge and agree with implementing only for new
employees and postponing the election for current employees.
The attached amendment to the Personnel and Salary Resolution extends the election ofthe new
retirement formula to unrepresented new employees,which includes Elected Officials,Executive
Management and Executive Aides and Executive Assistants of elected officials,and is included in Exhibit
E.
Discussions are underway with the Orange County Managers Association (OCMA)and Orange County
Attorneys Association (OCAA)regarding the implementation ofthe election of the "1.62%at 65"
retirement formula for new employees,under the terms of the respective contract extension agreements.
We anticipate that we will return to your Board in the near future with implementation agreements for
OCMA and OCAA upon completion of those discussions.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
In an effort to address increasing pension costs,the County initiated steps towards implementing a new
lower retirement formula 111.62%at 65 11 combined with a'Defined Contribution Plan for non-safety
employees.The lower formula,combined with the Defined Contribution Plan will result in a significantly
lower cost to the County and to the employees than the current 2.7%at 55 retirement formula.The
implementation of the proposed retirement program required legislation to be approved through the State
legislative process,which was approved on October 11,2009.
The bill requires an employee who elects the lesser of the two specified retirement formulas be eligible to
receive a contribution to a defined contribution program from the County based on the employee's
contribution to a defined contribution program.
Employees who elect the new,lower retirement formula will be eligible to participate in a Defined
Contribution Plan in which the County will provide a one-hundred percent (100%)match ofthe
employee's contributions during the first year of the plan up to two percent (2%)of the employee's salary,
and in subsequent plan years will provide a fifty percent (50%)match of the employee's contributions up
to two percent (2%).
An issue has arisen regarding the possible tax impact of offering the retirement formula election to current
employees.The Internal Revenue Service (IRS)has indicated that doing so would result in the employee
contribution paid by the Current employees offered the election to no longer be excludable from gross
income.We are pursuing this issue withthe IRS.Until this tax issue is resolved,we recommend
Page 2
j
10-11
':
EXHIBIT D·Page 4
proceeding with the implementation ofthe election for new employees only.Memoranda of
Understanding with OCEA,AOCW and lUOE are currently contemplating offering to both current and
new employees the election between the two retirement formulas.Attached are Side Letter Agreements
with each ofthese labor associations whereby they acknowledge and agree with implementing only for
new employees and postponing the election for current employees.When the tax.issues are resolved,we
will return to your Board with a Resolution adopting the election of the new Tier III 1.62%at 65 formula
for the current employees.
The Human Resources Department,the County Executive Office,the Auditor-Controller,OCERS staff,
OCEA and other labor representatives have worked together on implementation efforts,including system
modifications,employee communications,pre-employment seminars,website information and updated
forms so new employees will be properly informed of the requirement to elect their retirement benefit
formula.Additionally,tracking and reporting mechanisms will be available for use by departments to
assist in following up with any new employees who have not made an election before the 45 days
provided for has expired.
Government Code Section 7507 requires that the County engage an actuary to provide a statement ofthe
actuarial impact upon future annual costs,including normal cost and any additional accrued liability,of
any changes in retirement benefits or other postemployment benefits prior to the Board of Supervisors
authorizing such changes.The required report is attached hereto as Exhibit F.Section 7507 requires that
the actuary's report be made public at a public meeting at least two weeks prior to the adoption of any
changes in public retirement plan benefits or other postemployment benefits.The report was made public
at the meeting of the Board of Supervisors held on December 15,2009.Finally,Section 7507 requires,
with respect to any such changes,that the County Executive Officer (CEO),acknowledge in writing that
he or she understands the current and future cost of the benefit as determined by the actuary.That
acknowledgement is attached hereto as Exhibit G.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is ~o immediate financial impact;potential future savings from implementing of the new pension
program.
STAFFING IMPACT:
No
REVIEWING AGENCIES:
County Counsel
EXIllBIT(S):
Exhibit A -Resolution Adopting Election and "1.62%at 65"Retirement Formula
Exhibit B -Side Letter Agreement with OCEA
Exhibit C -Side Letter Agreement with AOCW
Exhibit D -Side Letter Agreement with lUOE
Exhibit E -Amendment to Personnel and Salary Resolution
Page 3
10-12
)1
.j
EXHIBIT D •Page 5
Exli1ibit F-Bartel Actuarial Statement of Cost Impact of the "1.62%at 65"Retirement Change dated
December I,2009
Exhibit G •Acknowledgement Pursuant to Government Code Section 7507
Page 4
10-13