HomeMy WebLinkAbout0207.094\.
April 7, 1994
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Palo Alto, Californi~
\.
Attention: Finance commltt~.a
~l\'l'IOH FOR THE USI< Or....~~B..kLQI~L 702 CREptt
Membors of the council:
Report in ariee
In April 1993, sta.ff was directed _by tho Finance Conueitteo to
develop a recommondation tor tho use of tha Assembly Bill {AS} 702
Public Employe.s Retirement Syst.", (PERS) credit of $6.1 ,,111ion.
Upon completion. of an .ftctulirial study, which set the CityrB
liabilit)· tor post-e"ployment health benefits at $33.5 ,,1111on, and
adherinq to the criteria eetablished' "for use of the funds by the
Finance COIamittee, staff developed altornative applications ~f tho
AB 702 credit to p.rti~lly offset this liabilityovar the next five
to ten years. The recommended alternative provideR for a fundinq
of retiree health btmefits to the extent th~t actual benefit-n
exceed one and one-half perc~nt of the City's gross payroll costs
in any fisc&l year, as illustrated in the graph belov. such an
application of the AS 702 funds -should help the Ci t.y "oet its
retiree. health benefit obligations, Which continuo t,o .grow as a
percentage. of the operating budget, until bpproxi'mately the year
2008.
CMR:207:94
:,~ .
···(C
-\\..
$6M
$SM
$'.
$3.
$2.
$1.
$0"
rlication of 111! 702 Credit to
Fund Future Postemployment
Benefits .-'-------'
PJ:oject"ed H~tir'"t
rnedic;)l benefits
1993 94 95 !16 97 98 !19 2000 01 0:2 0) 0" 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 U
Piscal year ended June 30
Background
In acc9rdance with AB 702, which was passed as part of the 1991-92
State budget, the City reduced its employer contributions to the
Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) by $6.1 million betwee:-.
December 1991 and March 199:). These funds represented amoYr,ts
returned to employers from spec.i..fic PERS accounts, which had teen
previously established for inflation protection benefits for
CMR:207.94 2
retirees. As a result of the reduced contribut.ions, the cit.y
recorded savings in the area of retirement coats for fiscal years
1991-92 and 1992-93, in all operating fUnds. council earmarked
these savings 86 designated for unfunded employoe benefit
obliqations, and st.a.ff was given the assignment of devoloping a
methodology fOI' applying the funds based ,upon the following
criteria: . 1) funds would not be used to fund or augment ongoing
programs or recurring costs, but would he a one-time application to
reflect ita ono-time nature; 2) funds would be applied to existing
post-employmont/employee obligations; 3) the application would have
the most positive overall budget impact over a five to ten-year
time .frame; and 4} staff,'Would discuss applications with interested
employe~ groups prior to returning with a recommendation.
A&~iAl Review of Health Benefits for Retirees
By applying AB 702 funds to post-employment health benefit
obligations, the nexus between the source and antiCipated use of
the PERS credit would ~e retained. In addition, Council has long
be.en aware that retiree health benefits constitute a large.,
unfunded liability of the City which could significantly impact the
City's resources available for operations in the long term.
However, th.e magnitude of such liabilities for post-employment
health benefits were unknown. A consultant was obtained to perform
an actuarial study of these benefits and the CJty's retiree pool,
1n order to render a determination of th~ amount of tho
post-employment health benefit liability.
CUrrently, the City recognizes the cost of retiree health benefits
when it pays the actual premiums for retirees. This 1s known ae
"pay-as .... you-go" funding and cash-basis accounting, the prevailing
practice in the· public s,ector. In the private sector, the
Financial Accounting standards Board {FASS) has issued a standard
{FAS 106) that requireG recognition of post-employment health
benefit costs on an accrual basis, as opposed to the "pay-as-you
goH approach. As a public agency, the City is subject to
Governmental Accounting Rtandards. Board {GASij) and not PASB;
however, GASS is curriantly asse'ssing the virtues of a similar
standard for governmental entities. .
One 'Way to think of accrual-bast's t'ecognition of retiree healt.h
plan costs is to take the position that employees "earn" retiree
health benefits during the course., of their working careers.
According to FASB, a current retiree or an employee currently
eligible, to retire is considered to have fully earned all future
benefits, al1d an employee in mid-career is considered to have
partially earned them.
The actuarial review was conducted in August 1993 by William Mi:!rCBl."
Inc., to deterMine the potential Liability associated with the
City'S retiree health benefits, and the impact that accrual-basis
eMIl, 207, 94 3
\
'I"·'
(rather thon cash-basis) reparting of thi. liability would have on
the financial stateMents~ Thn actu~rial review concluded that the
present v~h,e of hee,lth benefits expe'Pted to be paid by the City to
all current rutirees and to current employees who are exp~cted to
retire is $4S 1'Oi 11 ion. This is to Bay that if the city had $45
Rillion in a fund now, it would be enough, with interest, to pay
tor all retiree health benefita for everyone now retired or
e~ployed by the City, for their expected career with tha City. Of
this amount" $13 rn~llion is considered to be the por'tion
attributable to service already completed by employaes~
This portioni. c.ll~d the l\coWlulate~ post-employment Eon.tits
Obl1qation ("PBOI. The !IPSO is the figure that FAS (Financial
Accounting-standards) uses as the measure of an employer's existing
comaitB~nt for retiree health benefits. The following chart shows
the co:mponents of thO' APBO for the city.
APBO aa of July
Total APBO =
l2.0\
$10,718 Active Ineligibl~
1, 1993 (OOOs)
$33.485,000
Current Retirees
24.6%
Active Eligible
,
" '.'i\
\~, > •
,':\\
Current Retireesl
Active Bligible,
Active Ineligible,
CUrrently retired employe~s .~
~loyees currently eligible to retire
Employ~es currently ineligible to retire but who
have partially earned their poatamployment health
henefit
CMR:207:94 4
"
If the cityl/ero required to .ecru. An expen •• (or 1993/1994 that
not only takes into account the cash o.utllliY for current retiree
health benefits, but also r.c~niz •• tho growth In the liability
tor. future benefits, tho expens. would be $6 million. This would
represent ft full accrual ot recordinq tha city's post-employment
h •• lth benefits.
ACCRUAL-BASIS RBTIR!e HEALTH PENEFIT8
lU3fH
(000)
S81U ~lre P01i'~C:::",-+-..:T:.::o:.::t:::a~l--l
Cosh outlay_ ~_~~_--t-,$,-.;c.9,,-),,-1_+--.1.1_~. -1.1:.;6c:2:.......-l . ..!$..:;1.!.,,;..7.:.3~1--f
Amortization
of AP~.Q~___"';3c.:8":;5 __ +_-'''''';S",2_1---_3::''1::''6''--. 222 1,675
Intorest
cost EL __ . ___ ~ 1, 1~. 499 __ 3_5_0_ 2,649
Total __ . ~~63 $2,875 _.$983 $734 $6,055
(1) 20 years at amortization
(2) Interest chargo on the APBO
Implied in the reco""sndation.s of the actuarial study is tho belier
that the reqUirements of GASb's rule viiI be similar to those of
VAS 106, although. the GAS8 is not expect.ed to is,Bue its statement
for saveral years. Under the existing public-sector accountinq
rule (GASB 12 ~Disclosure of Information On Post-e~ployment
Benefits other Than Pension Benefits by State n.nd Local
Governmental Employers'I), the city may continue to recoqnize
retiree JI\~<lical expense on a IIpay-as-you-qo" basis, and there is no
requirement, that the benetits be pre-funjed. However., the l·esliits
of the actuarial study allow staff to Goe the potential impact that
accrual-basis accountin9 for ra:liroa health c,q.nefits would have on
tho City's financial statements.
The City accounts for .all employee l>_"~ .. ath benefits, including post
e~ployment health bGnetlts, vithin an internal service fund.
Within this fUnd all benefit and insurance costs are accumulated
and charged 01Jt to the dep.erttl'lonts. As such, lrnpact of a full
acorual of post-employmont hoalth benefits would be substantial, as
shown below.
CMIl: 2 07,94 5
,,', .
I
I ! ..
,.,.
i:
, "
.,
. \,
GENERAL BENEPITO AND INSURANCB INTERNAL SERVICE PUND
BTATEKENT OF REVE.~BS, BXP&N82S kND C~QB8 IN l\IITAll<BO
EARNINGS FOR THE YEAR ENDED JO~B )0, 1993
(in thollsands of dollars)
(Res~.ted)
cash Basia Accrual Bas19 ----~-
Revah,ues $27,934 $27,934
Expenses $26,860 $32,240
Net Income (Loss) __ ~l,074 _'-<$4,306)
Retained Earnings, Beqinning
of Year _. ___ $_~. 933 .2 1 ,933
Retained Earnings, End of
Year $3,007 ($2, J73)
~~-~~'"""",.., ---
Since application_ of accrual-bas.l.s accounting for retiree healt.h
~nefits would necessitate the reporting of an unfunded liability
based on assumptiotls yet to be standardized, staff )"'ccoJ:1l:'lends that
the city continue to recogniz.e the retiree: health bonGfit expans8
on a Upay ... as .. you-go" basis.
Representatives from William Mercer were available for 3
presentation of its review of the City's health benefit obligations
to retirees on October 1~, 1993. Staff and members of tho city's
labor groups attended the discussion. The focus of the ~eating vas
to discuss the actuarial study and receive inp1.lt on how AS 702 PERS
cradits may be used to address the city's unfunded retiree health
henefits .
. ~ppllqation athe AD" 702 cr.dU
Having obtained the actuarially-~etermined lJ ability a.sociated
wi.th health benefits provided City retirees, staff set out to
formulate alternative applications of the AS 702 funds which 'WQuld
most closely adhere to the criteri1'l established by Council. In
particular, the timinq of the benefits realized under each
alternative should have a five-to-ten-year time frame (criteria 3),
which would prove difficult to achiev~ as a one~ti~e application
(criteria 1). }.pplication of the funds In total to fund post
employment health benefits on a cash basis would ~erely displace
funds budgeted for ongoinq operations. Offsatting the estimated
liability for post-employment health benefits would establiSh an
CHR: 2.Q7: 94 6
i',
!.
.
IHitial 20 percent funding of the liability, but would not directly
impact the ,cityis budget allooations in the nGar future. Expending
only th,o interest earned on the AS 702 funds would have a minimum
i~pect on the overall budgets of future years, especially with thQ
growth antioipated in annua) cash outlays for retiree healtn
benofits, and would leave application of the original funds ~till
undetan:ainad ... Clearly, the selected alternative for applying th('l
AD 702 funde would need to balance a one-ti=e application with th~
desire 'f.or a. lonq~:r-term benefit for the City.
For 1993-94, the budgeted cost of health. caro eovtlraqe for the
City's retirees totalled approximately 1.4 percent of qr099
payroll. In future years, as thO growth in the liability for
future retiree benefits exceeds the growth in the City's gross
payroll, a larger percentage of tile City's resources 'Will be needed
to IrIcet these post-employment health hl3nefit obligations. The
offset of retires health benefits beyond a given percentage or
gross payroll aross as an appropriate alternative. for the USQ of AS
702 funds. Such application would have a positive overall budget
impact for the next five to ten fiscal years, without supplanting
a reasonable operating budget allocation for retiree healt.h benefit
costs.
In developing this alternative, staff utili~ad trend infornation
provided in the actuarial study by William Mercer, Inc~, co~bined
with. the City's actual data. .'to the Mercer report notes, "Among
tJle. actuarial assumptions {utilized in the study), the one 'With the
moat uncertainty is the rate of future increase in health benefit
costs, most often called Itrend' ..• the valuation results are quito
sensitive to trend. II While the actuarial consultant used what it
considered to be realistic trend assumptions in its valuation,
staff could foresee changes in the Citytu health care cost fltrend U
developinq even before the Nercer study 'Was complete. F()r examplo,
the PEHHCA rate schedule for 1993-94 indicated an averago premiuM
increase of only 2 percent, quite' a deviation from the 9 to 12-
percent increase projeoted from the health care cost trends used in
the study.
B2timatiop of Rati;e. Health Plan costs
Staff haG foreoasted the growth in retiree medical ftxpense on a
"pay-as~you-qo" basis. The current employee health' care plan
administered by PERS (known as PEMHCA plan) was effective on
January 1, 19~3. The, table below illustrates the percentage
increase for both active elrlployees and retirees experienced by the
City (plan year starts on August 1 of each year).
CIIIl: 207: 94 7
,,'.
1,'
')
I
t
I
t
i
I
I
I
.. ~
I
!
1
I
I
I
,)1.
,',
:.:L:;:;.·.:",,_..::... ••
CIn BKPLOYB2 ~no R~TtR~E HE~.L'rn PLAN C"S'I'S
Acti~E'mployee RetirEe
Plan Year Health premium Number City-Paid Premium Number
08/93-02/94 $2,266,000 943 $424,000 347
01/93-07/93 $2,221,000 942 $368,000 336
l of
j,noreasa 2.0' o.n 15.3t 3.3t
Although the cost of active employee health plans has increased
by only 2 percent, the City-paid retir.ee health plan premiUlU has
increased by 15.3 percent. TherA are several reasons for this
large increase. First, retirees have selected the preferred
provider plans (PPO) over ths health maintenance organizations
(HMO) to 8; greater extent than active ernployees.; th-2: premiulIl rate
tor PPO's increased more rapidly than HMO's in 1993/1994.
Secondly, the total cost increase reflects n 3.3 percent
retirement rate (i.e., an increase 1n the retiree pool}. Finally,
the increaso reflects an additional 5 percent Bnnual increase in
the City's contribution towards retirees' dependent coverage. :this
annual inorease in employer contribution is enforoed by tho PERS
contract.
Based on this aotual experienced increase of 15.3 peroent, staff
developed different assumptions pertaining to retiree health plan
costs from tho health care cost,s trend utilized in the Mercer
valuation. From these assumptions, three scenarios are illustrated
for growth in retiree health plan costs:
CKR:207:94 8
\
.,
i.:. Ii
,
;" •• _--,i •• __ , __ "":.·i.'i:":';:_~ __ ·1 •
. :!
MSt1llP'UOIi
RII'I'IRBB HEAL'rII l'LAN COS1'9 II/CREASES
--
~,hi~ 199>/9. 1994/95· 199'196 1996/91 1~9'J /98 Description
1 15.H B.H B.3' S.H B.3t Gro·tlth
maintained at
8ame rate lIS
. 1994/95
2 15.3\ B.3' 11.Jt 11.3' 11. 3' Growth
maintained at
same r.ate as
1994/95, plus
increase in
inflation
factor of 3'
r-----f..-.------r.nnually
t
J 15.3\ 8.3' 19.0' 18.0t 17.0' Per Mercer
Study health
care cost
trend,
(includes Jt
retirement rate
and 5'
incr-emBntl;:\l
dependent's
--contributjo~1---
* In February 1994, PERS announced that tho PERSCare premium
rl\te will remain unchanged in I'Vl994/95. -
othe.r assumptions needed to ana,:tyz:e the proportion of resources
that will be required in fut.ureyear bUdgets for retiree health
benofits, namely, gross payroll "c:osts and investment rates of
return, wer$ acquired from t.he Economic Future Study. For purpose
of tbie analyo.is, gross payroll costa are, projeoted to increase 3.5
peroent annually. 'The City's rata c.f return on investment 'Was
assumed to be 5.4 p6rcent for 1993/1994, 5 percent for 1994/1995,
5.5 percent tor 1995/1996, and 6 percent thereafter. Althouqh
these assu~ptions are as volatile as rising health costs, they have
bO.Qn held st.elible for illustration of staff's recommended use of the
AS 702 cr«dit.
Th.o laat two columns in each of the .following exhibits show the
draw on funds provided by the AB 702 credit, if applied at the time
the City'e rotiree health plan costs exceed one and one"'half
ps~cont of gross payroll. The exhibits show that the City would
CMR:207:94 9
,_-0.-'
.,
',-.' .
•
·. .
, •. <........, __ ~='tr::;!:l~f.t#-i>ktt.~~ ...
i
begin drawin", on the AB 702 runds .s early as Uscol year 1995; and
ths tundo would be totAlly expended as early as fiscal year 2005,
depending on the rate of gro~th of retiree health plan costs.
Bxp.n~abl. TrUst lUnj
Funds from the AS 702 credit are currently held in each of tho
City's operatillg funds, dosiqnated lor 801118 (utura application
towards retiree obligations. In conjunction with the recQIDnended
application of these .onies, staff roco~9nd8 that these funds ~
uBed to establish on exp.ndabl~ trust rund or the City. Interest
will be allocated to the fund. Ths use of an oxpend~b19 trust fund
will provide assurance 'that tho funds, are utilized only, in
conformance with the intont under which the t~ust fund 1s created.
l\UQ.~M&tiOR
Staff rc,cOMonds that tho funda obtained tt"om the PEnS AS 702
credtt be :maintained in an expendable trust fund, and utilized to
supplement tho City's incro(;lsing post-o.t:lploYl=!ant health benefit
costs of future ye8l"S~ To the extent that rot ires helllth benefits
exceed a reasonabl€J, percentaqo of gross payroll -costs (one and ono
half porcent), the 11.8 7Q2 funds should be drawn UPOJl [or t.his
specific purpose.. Dspending on futUre post-e~ployJ!ll;1nt hea~th
benefit cost increelses, the AD 702 funds di'lould he .ftvailable for
this purpoSE): ulltil apPl"Qximately the yael\" 2008.
Respectfully submitted,
/J)fjJrf.h'wJ1 ~AA";~ ,sru:;LL
~~d~
EM Yr:( HARRI SON
Di~ector of Finance
~~~
City Manager
At.tachlcents:
CMR.207,94
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 2
Exhibit 3
Exhibit 4
10
(>
;
,
EXHIBIT 1
Projected RetJreea' PEMHCA COal V. City'. Gro .. Payroll
1m<Impticm:
1. Grou".yro.'J fncrHU •• t 3.6% SIln/JaIfy.
2., n .. ofrrthJm on tn'IrJ!ImMrII. 5.4" for 1~. ~~ !r:.v r~5, 5.6% tot 1P9!W6 • .,,, tMff.ft~.,.
3. FY 1~~~' PEMHCA I$lJ1J1ue!f1.ed b"td OIl Jan.JuMI1m ld'uaJ &:Xpood.'tL'f'tI.
4 R_,' PEMHCA inao .... II 16.3% fOi 199W4. B.311 fof 191>&115 SlId (hor .. nor.
Fiscal ReUt ••• • RellPayro!l 1.5% 01 EXC8s.s
Yeac G CIlia P@!lll P.EMtlCA ~ Groul'ayro!! lieallh~Clrn
1992193 $50.036.972 $629.084 1.26% 750,555
IIl93194 51.788,266 725.334 1.40% 776.82~
1994195 53,600.855 785.537 1.47% 804.013
1995196 55,476.885 650.736 1.53% 832.153 18.583
1996/97 57,418,576 921,347 1.60% 861,279 60,069
1997196 59,428,226 997,819 1.86% 891,423 106,396
1998199 61,508,214 1,000,636 1.76% 922,623 158,015
1999100 63,661,002 1,170,3.Jl 1.84% 954,915 215,410
2000l01 65,869,137 1,267,488 1.92% 988,337 279,131
2001102 88,195,257 1,372,668 2.01% 1,022,929 349,739
2002103 : '70,582,091 1.466,600 2.11% 1,058,731 427.869
2003104 73,052,464 1,609,988 2.20% 1,095,787 514,201
2004105 75,609,300 1,743,616 2.31% 1,134,140 609,477
2005106 78,255,623 1,888,337 2.41% 1,173,834 714,502
2006107 80,994,572 2,045,069 2.52% 1,214,919 830,150
2007108 83,829,363 2,214,809 2.64% 1,257,441 &57,f.J9
2008109 86,783,411 2,398,638 2,76'1'. 1,301,451 1,097,187
2009/10 89,800,130 2,597,725 2.89% 1.347.002 1,250,724
2010111 92,943,135 2,813,337 3.03% 1,394,147 1,419,100
2011/12 96,196,145 3,046,844 3.17% 1,442,942 1,603,901
,<" •
, . . ~ ..
!
Ofawoo I: .
8B1112 ~ :' .'
$6.100.000
6.429.400
6.750.870
7,102,563
7.4$.5,044 I 7,800.167 .
, ',!',"
8,100,882 I' ..... . '
8.358,382 ,
8,564,005 I'
I·
8,707,122 L 8,776.009
8,757,1)17
3,638,922
8,397,765
" .. ".
8,021,672
7,488,162
6,774,433
5,655,132
4,702,099
3,284,089 ,
< _. ',':, ,
i)' ' " .
. , ',,'
\'"
It."
,.:,,· •• _ ... 'd . ...:_.·:.iH~:..;!.,,~~...;:;:~J'~~~:.#. . .;.:_,
EXHIBIT 2
Projected Retire •• ' PEMHCA Cost Vs CII)I'8 Gro •• Payroll
AuumJI/iM$:
1. Gto.s.s p&yro,1 ~un ~ 3 . .5~ &Mua/ly . .a RfIfe 01 mum on iflVNlmMt js 05.4" for 199.1'94, 5% for 1~5, 5.5% for 199M'6, 6". thers«tlter.
3, FY 19n5l3 ~l'Hs' PEMHCA Is 8f)fIuaIizK baud on J.n.JuMJ/1~3IfCtuBl exPMdrlure.
4. R~s' PEMHCA fOO"flUa III 1~.,", for 1993-94, 11,3~ fOr 1~5 and Mfr.."u.
Fiscal Retirees' RellPayroll 1.5%01 Excess
Y.aar GIllU.E'II)'[Q]) EEMI:iC./\ % GmnJ'JjJ'{QU l:ieaJlbJ;.Q,u
1002193 $50,036,972 $629,084 1.26% 750,555
1993194 51,788,266 725,334 1.40% 776,824
lB94195 53,600,855 785,537 1.47% 804,013
19951Q6 55,476,865 874,302 1.58% 832,153 42,149
1996J97 57,416,576 973,098 ~.69% po' ,~79 111,820
1997198 59,428,226 1,083,058 1.82% ,--., . -, 191,t)35 -,~#..'"
1998199 61,508,214 1,205,444 1.00% 922,623 282,821
1999/00 63,661,002 1,341,659 2.11% 954,915 386,744
2000/01 65,889,137 1,493,267 2.27% 986,337 504,930
200111)2 68,195,257 1,002,006 2.44% 1,022,929 839,077
2002103 70,582,091 1,949,813 2.62% 1,058,731 791,081
2003104 73,052,464 2,058,941 2.82% 1,095,767 963,054
2004105 75,609,300 2,291,490 3,03% 1,134,140 1,157,351
2005106 78,255,626 2,550,429 3.26% I, 1,376,594
2006/07 80,994,572 2,838,627 3.50% 1 709
2007108 1
,
2010111 92,943,135 4,356,012 4,69% 1,394,147 2,961,665
201.1112 96,196,145 4,848,241 5.04% 1,442,942 3,405,299
Draw on
A6I02
$6,100,000
6,429,400
6,750,870
7,077,701
7,383,834
7,623,731
7,761,365
7,836,296
7,773,370
7,562,350
7,177,545
6,587,361
5,755,810
4,641,969
(6,368,324)
(9,773,623)
i, "
f.= ,.
--.. :, ..•
..
"
"
EXlIIBIT3
ProJected Ret/Nlea' PEMHCA Cost Va City's Gro .. Payroll
Mwmp6ona:
1. ""'" po",,", """" ... '" J. 5% Mn<IaIIy.
Z Rm ofrefvm 00 kH~ 115.4~ fr>r fro..\o94. 6" for 199.c..95, fUi'K for (995-'96, 6% tMreaftu.
$_ FY 1~~S' PEMHCA I. ¥IlWllli:40 him eM J.".,JunalfPf}3 &efust &xpenditvre.
4. Rf!I6t;.os' PEMHCA ~a pH ~ Study M&'fh cenI (:()$f frrmd, (fncllPJos .1% r&til&m&nt nX9
8M 5~ IIIQ" i .>hJ 6f~" eonfJjbut)oo)
FlsJ'.a1
'(eM
1992193
1993194
1994195
1995.'96
1996/97
1997198
1998199
199!l1OQ
2000l01
2001102
2002103
2003104
2004105
2006107
2007108
200Ml9
2009/10
2010111
2011112
.l'Uc
199W4
1~
1~W<5
I~l
IP>17IQa
GrQU~
$50,036,972
51,768.266
&3,600,855
55,476,665
57,418,576
69,426,226
61,508,214
63,661.002
65,669,137
68,195,257
70,582,091
73,052,464
75,609,300
80,994,572
63,829,383
86,763,411
89,800,130
92,943,135
96,196,145
~Rete
PI.illOlHu
15.m
8.m
10.0%
1&0%
17.11%
Retirees'
PEMHCA
$629,084
725,334
765,537
934,789
1,103,050
1,290,589
1,497,060
1,721,619
1,962,648
2,227,603
2,528,329
2,869,654
3,257,057
4,195,822
4,762,258
5,405,163
6,134,860
6,963,066
7.903,080
l'oi
'991Wl>
Imw
2OOGI),
2001& 18f8f
ReVPayroll
%
1.26%
1.40%
1.47%
1.69%
1.92%
2.17%
2.43%
2.70%
2.98%
3.27%
3.1>8%
3.93%
4.31%
5.18%
5.66%
6.23%
6.83%
7.49%
8.22%
.,-:
AinJaI Rate
o!.lnml".
16.0%
15.011
14.11%
13.5%
1.5% of Excess
GmsS.p.ayJ:l)~ l:te.altILCo&l
750,555
776,824
604,013
832,153
861.279
891,423
922,62~
954,915
968,337
1,022,929
1,058,731
1,095.787
1,134,140
1,214,919
1,257,441
1,301.451
1,347,002
1,394,147
1,442,942
102,635
241,n2
399,146
574,437
766,704
974,309
1,204,674
1,469,598
l:n3,867
2,122,918
2,980,904
3,504,818
4,103,712
4,787,858
5,588,919
6.460,136
Dtawon
AB102
$6,100,000
6,429,400
6,750,870
7,013,668
7,178,443
7,186,055
7,008,315
6,616,108
5,9S0~307
5,062,171
3,806,128
2,158.316
35,403
(5,466,426)
(8,973,244)
(13,076,958)
(17,864,814)
(23,433,733)
(29,893,871)
',';
'.
..
~ '.' .. ,
i.
I
I ,
'.
.10101
$4M
$211
GOM
1993
" .. ,\
..... ', _.
:;'.: •. ":";,i..Y,, ,_;.;!... ~ .• .:.i~ ..
Exhibit 4
Projeoted Retiree Medical Benefits
Exhibit 3
_______ 1.5% of paYr~lJ
95 99 01 03 05 07 09 11 94 98 2000 02 04 06 08 10 12
Fiscal year ended June 30