Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0420.094City of Palo Alto City Manager's Report TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL ATIENTION: FROM: FINANCE COMMITTEE CITY MANAGER DEPARThfENT: F'~ AGENDA DATE: Sepcembft' 13, 1994 CMR: 420;\14 SUBJECT: Actuarial Iofonnatloo Responding to Council Questions RegaroJng Long-Term ProjeWons ror Use of AB 702 Rtsenes REOUEST This repoll responds to questions raised by Council regarding slaft's recommendation on the use of AB '1C1l funds toward fulure cnsh outlays for retiree health benefits. ~TIQNS This is an iMannafional report. No action is rcquirOO. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The information conwn.:d in this report has been prepared to aid in the analysis of the use of AB 7C1l funds toward, future retiree health benefits. EXECUTIVE SUMMARy In April 1994, Jlaffsubmitttd to Council. recommendstion for the use of the Assembly Bill (AB) 7(Q Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) credit of $6.1 million obtain.:d by the Cil}' in fiscal years 1991-92 and 1992-93. Staff's recommondalion would provide for the funding of retiree health benefits in the future, (0 Ihe extent that th..., benefits exceMM a certain percentage (1.5 percent) of the City', gross payroll oosts. (CMR,207:94). To determine the appro<imall: time frame oyer which the AB 7C1l credit (X'ild sustain such • funding leyel, several scenarios were developed. Assumptions were rna"" regarding key variables which will impact Ihe future costs of retiree O1ooic81 be..,fits and the relatM funding of such benefits. Faclors such as continued growth in health care costs, increase> dea ,. ~{~ "(' ,\ in the City" retiree population and the effects of changes in the City's contribution fonnula all contribute to the projection of these costs, In an attempt to develop actuariaIl)' sound estimales, !he City contracted with William Mef(Cr Inc. 10 provide projections of the City'. cub oullay for retiree health benefits for a future period of 30 yeus. The resu!1s are ahown in the IIttacbed report from William M. Mercer Inc. FISCAL IMPACT When compared 10 projected incre .... in the City'. gross payroll costs (Attachment B), projected retiree health benefits per the Mercer sludy will begin to e.=<I 15 pef(Cnt of payroll in fiscal year 1995, and the drawdown on the AB 702 credit should continue until approximately the year 2008. Changes in the fectors discuss<<l in the report ""II impact tJ-.e cost of retiree health benefits, shomning or .xlending the period of the available funding from AS 702. Howeyer, ur.der current actuarial as,umptions, Ih' most polifive overall blldget impact from the use of the credit should fall within the five 10 ten-year time frame, which was one of the criteria develope<l by Council for use of the funds. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT None. AITACHMENIS A) Report by William M. Mercer, Inc. Re: Update of Actuarial Study, dated June 29;1994 B) SclIeduJe: Projected Retirees' PEMHCA Cosl Vs City'. Gross Payroll PREPARED BY: Carol Ferrell, Accounting Manager r5 (' DEPARTMENT HEAD REVlEW:'---(fl Ob ! I & \l!.~_ EmTyHarrison Director of Finance CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: CC: nla Tune 29, 1994 Ms. Flora Tzeng Senior A=uruant City of Palo Alto Departri>ont of ~ 2SO Hamilton Avenue, Box 102.10 Polo A1IO, CA 94303 Re: Updoh> of Actuarial Stud,. Dear Flora: .,-~. ATIACHIIElH A Our acllWial study of the City's health benefits for "lilt .. , daled Novmlber, 1993, incl"ded • snon (>-year) proj«tion of the City's cash outlay for the benefits, AI the City's I<qUesl we have oxt<nded the projection 10 30 )'ears, and the results are shown in tlte attached exhibi ts, SUmmarY 9f Reoults The pro~on !hows thai. under the assumptions we have made, the City's co<t for health benefits for milees will in=ase throughout tlte projecti on period, with no significant stabilization, The increase is attributable 10 three factors: Growtb In lb. mi ... population, The retiree population increases throughout the proj<ctWn period, appeoring 10 stabilize IOward the end of the period. Dilling chat time. the retiree population more than doubles (almost triples, if retirees' spo .... are included), This means tha~ while there are presently 2,6 City wOlters for every retiree, in 30 years, there will be only 1.1. Health care c:cst illCftllSt'S. In the projection, we assumed that health care cost increases wouJd be high for the ne", several' y ..... and would then level off at S~% per year, Even at this rate, costs escaiate rapidly, particulJlrly when applied 10 • growing population (health care cost ttends are discussed further below), TIle CIty's amtribution fol'Dlula. Under its curtent anangmenl witlt Pl!RS, the City pays the full cost of coverage for retirees and a small portion of the cost for spour.es, with the agreement that the contribution for spouses will increa.<e each year until the City pays the full cost for spouses as well. Under the asswnptions made'for the proj«tion, the City's 3 Emba"~ro U:lllel S~-,.e 12~ Sol< 1014() / sn20 Sa" Fril<X'y.oCA '34111 ~'Il'> 4153335;00 F.a( 415.$9:1 5S~ I M .. Fkn Tzeng June 29, 1994 Page 2 --~-~~--- contribution (or spouses increa.scs throughout the projection period. CONIitutInS an increasing share of their cost bul still well below the full cost (abo di~ furtbu below), The projection is based on the assumption that the 2lr"1lve workforce rernains at ilS =1 sUe. Terminations, deaths and retirements ("IV'C<: and disability) are e.: .. :pc.cted 10 tollow recent pattt.rns, and the age/sex mix uf the replacement employees is also C){pected to be consistent with IC'cent experience. The tabte below shows the size of the retiree population (ex:t:luding spouses), now Md in 30 years. THE EFFECJ' OF POPULATION GROWfH .!.9.lM 2023 w~ workm pel 1Il!i! w""", &!itm ~ wort", !!.£Ikm Bl!!a FiR t()l 11 1'< 102 106 1.0 ~ 203 70 2.9 203 lW 0.9 Polio: tIS SO 1.7 as 90 0.9 SEIU ill ill J.l ill ill .!J Tobl 941 3S1! 2.6 941 831 1.1 HeW. Care Q'!! InCi The projection results are extremely sensitive to the rates at wh.ich health care costs are expected to increase. In the exhibits, we have used the same assumptions as ~ used in !be actuarial valuation, in which cost increases are high (9~ eo 12%) in 1995 and grade down oyer 4-7 years to an ultimate rate of 5~%. ()Yer the past Iwo or three years, PERS has be~n ..... mely effective in holding down the rate of increase in the c..ast of the health plans offered to its members. It is Ilot unreasonable 10 expecl that they could continue 10 achieve such results for al I '.',. ~ ~~-~-------------------------,---------------------~--- Ms. FJon Then8 J,."., 29, 1994 Page 3 !oasl sev<raI more yom, U IIW were to occur, il would rtduco the rate at which the City's COS!> are projoco:d !.O ~ al least the costS al1ribulable to t<tirees (COSI$ lOr spooscs 'Would =tinue !.O ~, ~ "'*" PE RS' formula, the City's sha1e of the _'s <OS! would increa.e more rapidly). B .... use of the I<1\$ltivity of the proj«;tion rtSUlts to assurn«l increases in health care costs. the City may want to $tIC n:-.suJts using more optimistic (or more pessimistic) "-<sUmptioos. The proj«tion m<xI<l th.a! we used ,hould allow this 10 be dOrle al rea.s.ona~le (:ost The City's Contribution Formul~ The Ciry's COlllr,icl ,*,th PERS .«tuius thai contributions. fot retirec-s~ health benefits foUow whal PcRS Calls the "Unequal Contribution Rule". Under this lwe, the City is petmirsed to c""tribu~ less for [eUroes' health t>cnefilS th.an for <mployees', but the City musl increase the retiree conUibution each year UIltil it cat<bes up (in the City's case, unlll the City's contribution covers the full eo,t for ntUees and '1'<'",,). The.ttitl\n)elic of the contribotion "cat.:h up" is prescrib«! by PERS, and it is ~y supposed 10 take 20 years. Unfortunately, the tltoo!)' requires tltat heaJth care COSI$ remaiA ,level (or til"". 20 yom •• ptactiC41 impossibility. The ICUIal length of the "calctl up. period depct1d.I Oll the rale of increase in health care = the faster oosts incr<ase, tlte .loWCZ' the catch up. and vice versa. AI preoeat, the City pays ~ 5% and l~ of the cost of spousal eoYmge. Under tile ossumptions uood in the proj«;tiOll, ahcr 30 yean, the City would pay ~ 65$ and 7~ of !be COS! of spousal coverage. The twO !abies OItaCh,'; show, '"P'J8tely for each employee group, tlte projected roIirco and spouse popw.tion and tlte projoco:d cash outlay for re~ and spouses. The resallS are also shown graphicall)', again , .. pamted by employee group. Totals across aU employee groups at, shown two ways· split by group and betWO<Jl --.,. r L ~ ==0 ________ , ______________ _ Ms. Flora TZCIl8 1_ 29.1994 Pase 4 ••• We "'auld be pleased to discuss the projection '=lIS funber with )'00 or will>. otbc:o interested indMd.w., at the City, Your, very Iruly. ~'u~JJ2-- Michaol L. Kramer, FSA Principal ene, cc; I,Oiess t 'Ji~a~~~~IR~~ir~EI§~!!!!!!!~g!!! ~!aE!~!iftl~~~a!~ll'i~~E&~~~§155! ~J~~~~~~~*9~~~~E~ae~i!~~~~~~15aS }~i~~M~~~a~IE~~~5~~~.I~~~;~~§~i H aJ~s~~~~~~2;aa;!~~EQ;~~~~~R~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~M2~~~~--~~~S~~~=~~~:~~~~ 1------~Nfi~~~~~Nfi~~~~~~~"ftM"¥~~ ., iJ~···~~~~~~a.~.g.~~ .... ~.';~~~. J~~~~~~.~~~.;~~~~~~P~~~g~i~~~~~ l~=~~~!~5=~~~~~~~~~~E~~i~~!~;~~ 11~~~~'~~~~Rg=~~~~~81~~~!Ei;~~~~ ~f~~i~.~~~!E~~I.E!~S~:~;!R~~"~~~ g~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a~~;~21~S2~~=g~ l~-----~··------------~~~M~~MffN~ .-:i".--, ." ,.7·- ,.;, ~-'-'? .' .. ,,, .... ,--.. -. ~ . .,1 !~:t'"l;~':JUJ,."'l .I;'\i~~:.'~;.~-r··.-'_'_'· "I CITY OF PALO ALTO Cub Flo ... Projection -AU Gro" ... SI5 > • .!!! $10 ;; 0 ~ ~ u '" .. ~ " c C ..: SS 1---.. • --.~---_.- $0 -.. ' 1994 It\lil!,~"l' ~v: c..~WCf:'~, !IlIX;fl-'O';,~'!,1 1999 2004 2009 Y<t'ar 2014 2019 i • Fi";;,-----I!E Management • Police Q SJ;IU~ )' j' ~;~f I 06/1!)/94 CIJ!.2!:.~~,::';O l SIS I I '" .!! $10 ." 0 E' ~ 1.). .. '" " $S ~-. . ....... " c « 1994 ~ \'V<I ,;". "/ :.,,~'::rCef, incOr;,or.!:':cj 1999 ..... 111.11 ••• 1 2004 = Year i·-R.rl;;'--;;;S;u:;.-, ----.---~-.----- 2014 2019 ___ -I 06129/94 , ~'/ •... "";,,,~,;,;:cl~~'~";' ~,~_'-:.,_ ':, ~, ',' \:;l"";;J"~;~':<~\f@~c'~tt~~·, (' ',' . -, ··-····---1 ~ ~--~--~---.. --, I § I 0 ... ~ i~ I, 8. jV) 8 .. im 1 N ~ /J I .... I , ~ '. , ~ .. I , I , ~ ~ 8 ~ 8 S '" on t:I ;;; ;;; .. ~ I ___ .. ______ A_.I_ln_O.~!.:I_I._nu_u_v ____ . ____ . __ J $4 $3 ;>, -! " 0 .q8 ~ ~ 52 " c c « $1 ~'- $0 I ---_ 1994 ! L. 1/.";',1'-'-' f,,~ f·.1''rC(,f !'-,';"'f""-JI"'j 1999 CITY OF PALO ALTO Cash Flow Projection -Manageme>lt 2004 2009 Year 2014 I-Retirees I:ll spo~1 .._-------- 2019 ()6fZ9194 ., .' ,------------- 8 § '" oi :i .. 8 8. "'. .. ;;; spurmlIU ".lI nO All:) l"nuuV * 8 0 .. ... .. 0 ~ ~ :;;, -c.I ..., 0 " ~ 0 ~ 'f' .. ~£ ... i:~ -U ~ ."..mw ,(811"0 All::> !rnuuV .. :; .... Ii I~ '" 8 ~ .... !I ;.. ~ " .~ L; , 8 '" ~ ___________________ 1 ~ " r-------------------- L ___ __ __J l I I I ! 0 ~ ~ ! , 0 " Q ~ .... il ~ 0' .. 1000 ~ ! Oo!! it :><1. E-- I-( U o ~ N ",,". ~ ""~ '; . >t .. •. ' ,C-::.:,-:';":i:- -------] ~ I I '" I ~ I I I .. I iii t~ I i 18. 0 I I '<Il 8 .. /1;] ... II I ~ IJ I . l_~ ~ o I __ . ________ . ____ -..--J .~ I CITY OF PALO ALTO Population Projection -All Grwps ZOllO r-..., c " o 1500 .i:j ]000 ~ 500 o 1994 ',\/11;,_"., ~'1 V rC01, il'com"';,'. oj 1999 2004 2009 Year 2014 2019 I • Fire: I:a Management • Police CJ SEIU ] 06129/94 .:::. ' ~ .------------ 0 .. f-c -;;; ~i N I I~ I Oi 8. ~' I Vl I § .. III ~i N :! I ~ I ;.. I Il I r.r~ .~ o " '..: ~-! I-f-ci 8 L-____ N ~,.. u ! ~ g 8 8 § 0 ~' .. ~ N :~ luno'P""H I :> , -----------------' ~ S()() r- 600 -" " " ~ 400 ~ ::: 200 o 1994 1999 l ___ _ ,:.,j-."" ~,', ",\, If'i',. '''':''(f'' d,,'. ,j ~ __ ~ ___ ,~,,_"nm"""" ______ _ CITY OF PALO ALTO Population ProjectioD -SEW 2004 2009 V""r ~------....:=-I !_R<tU= 1l:iI~~ 2014 2019 I i , _,J 06/29194 ~ :.,1: ':; , .. ATTACHMENT B ProJecfed RetI .... ' PEMHCA Cost v. City'. Gro... Payroll ~: 1, Groo3 p;rymIt -.. •• f 3.~ .nnu~. 2, Ro/8oflOlvm ",,_"'Is 5.4" for 1993.0114, 5" forl99419~ 5.5" for 199~, "" ,,,,,,.en., 3. FY1992.93 f'fItir9u' PEMHCA J:s ennueH2td basfrJ on Je.,..JuOOOS3 tJCflJ8I e~ndfture, Fy,99ltP4 ~ actual e~ . ., Rttit'geS' PEMHCA incre88e3 is based Ofl WWi8m M61C6r, 'nco '$ f9port dattd ~4. Fiscal Retirees' RoUP,yrall 1.5% of Excess Orawon YBar Gross payrrill P.EMHCA % (lm~sPa)'[lill liailllh.CO$! AJ.lI02 1992193 $50,036,972 $629,084 1.26% 750,555 $6,100,000 1993194 51,788,266 733,843 1,42% 776,824 6,429,400 1994195 53,600,855 737,007 1.38% 804,013 6,75O,B70 1995i96 55,476,885 850,015 1.53% 832,153 17,862 7,103,324 1996197 57,418,576 970,374 1.69% 861,279 109,095 7,413,662 1997199 59.428,226 1,105,208 1.86% 691,423 213,785 7,632,103 199B199 61,508,214 1,251,918 2.04% 922,623 329,295 7,740,977 1999100 63,661,002 1,406,966 2.21% 964,915 452,051 7,726,262 2000101 65,889,137 1,575,901 2.39% 988,337 587,564 7,(;67,020 2001102 68,195,257 1,759,993 2.58% 1,022,929 737,064 7,239,753 2002103 70,582,091 1,953,173 2.77% 1,058,731 894,442 6,726,030 2003104 73,052,464 2,171,863 2.97% 1,095,787 1,076,076 5,966,951 2004105 75,509,300 2,413,348 3.19% 1,134,140 1,279,208 4,992,327 2005106 78,255,626 2,682,064 3.43% 1,173,834 1,508,230 3,693,143 2006107 80,994,572 3.66% 1,214,919 1,749,371 2,000,398 164 4,888,539