Berkeley faces difficult path to funding pension liabilities

The City Council heard a sobering report from outside actuary John Bartel at its special meeting on Tuesday night this week.

“I wore my Valentines Day tie, but that’s unfortunately the only good news I have here,” Bartel said. “Your contribution rate will not be going down. It will actually be going up in the future.”

The council has had a number of presentations on the unfunded pension liabilities in the last year. On Tuesday, Bartel explained that the actuarial target he was encouraging the city to meet was to reach 100% funding of the liabilities “over a reasonable period of time”.

But the difficulty of achieving that was highlighted by the figures Bartel presented. For the police safety plan — overwhelmingly the largest cost and the largest unfunded liability for the city — the city is currently paying 42% of salary in pension contributions. To reach a target of 80% of the liabilities funded in 20 years, Bartel said the city contribution would have to rise to 50.7%. To reach 80% funded in 10 years, the contribution would climb to 61.5%.

Depending on the method of calculation, the police plan is currently between 64% and 72% funded.

Bartel said pensionable wages for the police currently run between $22 and $23 million. So the annual cost of raising the pension contribution to 50.7% would be around $2.3 million.

Many cities, according to Bartel, work with a 30-year amortization of unfunded liabilties, and keep rolling the completion date into the future.

“If you do that, I think you end up not paying your unfunded liability off,” Bartel said. “I’m a fan of either a slightly shorter fixed period, so, for example, a 25-year fixed period of amortization. To the extent that clients can afford it, I recommend 20. You have to have the money to realistically pay that. I really do recommend 20. Most of my clients say to that recommendation, ‘Thank you very much, John, but we can’t afford to go there.’

“If you have a fixed period, even if that fixed period is 25 or even 30, so long as you have a legitimate end time, you are going to pay that unfunded liability,” he said. “Rolling amortization you’re just kidding yourself. You’re not going to pay that unfunded liability off.”

Among the policies the city is considering to address the unfunded liabilities is implementing a two-tier system, where new employees have a different plan. Current miscellaneous employees (non-police and fire) have a 2.7% at 55 plan (police have 3% at 50). If there were a second tier for new employees at, for example, 2% at 55, short-term savings would be negligible, but would come to around $15 million over 10 years. Bartel cautioned that implementing a second tier is “a long-term project” in terms of addressing unfunded liabilities.

Before the actuary’s report, the council was informed of a forecast $1.9 million revenue shortfall in fiscal 2012, based on figures from the first half of the year. The major shortfalls are in supplemental taxes ($1 million), property transfer tax ($600,000), utility user’s tax ($655,452), and interest income ($500,000). There were, however, some counterbalancing items: sales tax is running $539,000 above budget, transient occupancy tax is $300,000 over budget, and business license tax is $121,000 up.

“There are some bright sides,” said Mayor Tom Bates. “Sales tax is up, business license is up and hotel occupancy is up. These are all signs of economic activity.”

City staff recommended trimming expenditures by $1.9 million by eliminating transfer from the city’s General Fund $400,000 allocated for the council chambers move (which won’t happen in FY12), $1.1 million for the solid waste program in the refuse fund (again, not planned for FY12), and $400,000 for Measure B streets and roads fund because expected revenue decreases to that fund have not materialized.

The staff also reported on deficits in the permit service center fund, where expenditures exceed revenues by an expected $566,000 in FY12 and $150,000 in FY13. The fund balance will be down to $1.5 million at the end of FY12.

“We’re still not seeing big development projects coming in,” said Acting City Manager Christine Daniel. “Expenditures in the PSC have been reduced, the folks are managing their costs well, but we’re still running a deficit.”

The refuse fund is also running a deficit, expected to be $600,000 this fiscal year. Daniel said further cost reductions are planned. The mental health fund continues to face “significant revenue challenges”, largely because of a state audit that disallowed nearly $3 million in payments. An appeal on the audit has resulted in nearly $1 million in expected reimbursement.

Daniel was asked by Bates when the reimbursement could be expected from the state.

“Slow would be what I expect,” she said. “We have been extremely aggressive in pursuing these disallowances, and we will also be aggressive in pursuing the repayments. We are not the only jurisdiction in the state with these problems.”

Print Friendly
Tagged ,
  • EricPanzer

    So it’s a merely a matter of finding a solution that: doesn’t raise taxes; doesn’t cut City programs; doesn’t inflame public employees unions by cutting benefits; doesn’t raise no-growth hackles by encouraging development; and doesn’t otherwise require anyone to do anything they might regard as unpleasant or unbecoming of Berkeley.

    Simple! I actually solved this problem before Berkeleyside even posted about it. It was one of the seven impossible thoughts I had before breakfast. Hint: It involves unicorns. Net-zero, homeopathic unicorns.

  • Berkeley_Born1238

    City of Berkeley employees, not the 1% in but in the top 5%…anyone could have seen this coming. The city has been robbed and went along all the way..time to pay the piper….

  • jjohannson

    Too many older folks, not enough younger folks.  Older Berkeleyans have a working lifetime of earnings, property and investments, younger Berkeleyans have significantly less of each, along with dependent children.  It just doesn’t pencil out.

  • Completely Serious

    “you’re just kidding yourself”  Isn’t that the way the Council has always operated, on everything?

    Here’s what’s missing from this article:

    Immediately after the pension presentation, Council considered the pending resolution on the Elbonian Spotted Frog Protection Proclamation (ESFPP) recently issued by the Elbonian Ruling Committee.  After six hours of public comment, including a video slide show from the GES, the Elbonian Separatist Group, the Council ordered all available Staff to spend the next six months on nothing but studies concerning the Spotted Frog.  Councilmember Kriss Worthington, whose district includes three Elbonian immigrants, was a vocal supporter of the Council action:  “If we allow the rogue Elbonian frog hunters to decimate the frog population in this non-existent Central Asian country, it is a slap in the face to all frog lovers everywhere.  Berkeley must be at the forefront of issues that 1. have nothing to do with us 2. take our attention away from actually running this city in a responsible manner and 3. make us look good in the fringe press.”

    In a rare display of cohesion, the entire Council agreed with Worthington.

  • Improve Berkeley

    We need more sales tax and hotel tax revenue to support the city.  We need bring back more auto dealers, big retailers,  and build at least two or three major hotels.  Why should people in Berkeley have to spend their money in other cities when they want to buy a Ford, GM or Chrysler vehicle?  Why have guests stay in Emeryville when they could be in Berkeley? Berkeley residents go to other cities to buy cars, computers, and staples, because we refused to allow car dealers, Target and other major retailers to service our community. Emeryville is taking our sales tax revenues because they have the retail stores.

  • Berkeleyborn

    The leaders of Berkeley are too ignorant to capitalize on the city’s own wealth. Instead of encouraging businesses and hotels that would attract what is arguably the wealthiest and most educated population in the east bay to spend money locally, the city engages in left wing social engineering, shoveling city money to overpaid bureaucrats who run meaningless programs. Spend money to run Willard pool, “oh no, we don’t have it”…pay union employee to pike pension and drain city coffers…oh yes, me first, I vote yes, unions can do no wrong. City council is to protecting unions as cardinals are to protecting child molester clergy

  • citizen24601

    On Tuesday the 14th, I heard Mr. Bartel tell the Council that if the City set a goal of 80% funding in 20 years for the Police Safety pension, it would require $153 Million (present value, 2011 dollars) to achieve that goal.
    Lance Knobel, did you hear this as well?