HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - January 4, 1988 -CC •
CITY OF
d ii [1Ii11 .r ' die / ("4 401
Finance Dept * 213 E Foothill Blvd * Box 1395 * Azusa 91702-1395
(818) 334-5125
AGENDA ITEM
4 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF CIT • CIL
FROM: GEOFF CRAIG, DIRECTOR OF FINANC 111,0/4
DATE: DECEMBER 30, 19987
SUBJECT: 1959 SURVIVOR BENEFIT : SAFETY MEMBERS
Background
The City's contract with the Public Employees' Retirement System
provides for a monthly allowance for the spouse of an employee
killed in the line of duty, but only for miscellaneous employees.
This agenda item recommends that Council begin the process of
equalizing this benefit for all full-time City employees, as
agreed in the City's Memorandum of Understanding with the Azusa
Police Relief Association.
Findings
In 1949, the City entered into a contract with the Public
Employees' Retirement System (PERS) to provide such benefits to
Azusa's safety employees and to its miscellaneous employees as
two separate groups. In 1959, State retirement law enabled
contract agencies to amend their respective PERS contracts to
allow for monthly allowance of about $400 for the spouse of an
employee killed in the performance of his or her duties. This is
termed the "1959 Survivor Benefit" . Azusa opted for this but only
for its miscellaneous employees. It is not known why the City's
safety employees have never been covered by this provision.
The City's Memorandum of Understanding with the Azusa Police
Relief Association (APRA) provides that the City shall amend its
PERS contract to provide for the 1959 Survivor Benefit for City
safety employees. (In this context, the term "safety" refers
/
* '
/` ..
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
December 30, 1987
Page 2
only to the Police Department; the City's former Fire Department
employees will not be affected, in as much as for all practical
purposes, their retirement responsibilities have been assumed by
the County of Los Angeles. ) The employer contribution rate for
Azusa's safety employees is 26.586%. The new rate will be
26. 661%, thus the change in cost due to the optional benefit is
0. 075%. Applying this percentage to the most recent payroll
figures produces an amount of $65. 66 per pay period or $1,707. 16
annually. This percentage increase is the projected actuarial
rate to the year 2000, but, as the contract reads, the employer
rate is subject to change (either up or down) with retirement
experience and other factors.
The employee contribution rate for this amendment is $2.00 per
month per employee. The City pays this amount for miscellaneous
employees and has agreed to do so for the safety employees. The
cost of this will be about $39.56 per pay period or $1, 028. 56 per
year. Thus, the total annual cost of this amendment is
$2,735.72. The implementation process for a PERS contract
amendment is quite formal. Following is a timeline of the
various events that are required:
January 4, 1988 Council passes a resolution of intent
to amend the PERS contract
January 4-18, 1988 Affected employees cast ballots approv-
ing the contract amendment
January 18, 1988 Council conducts first reading of an
ordinance amending the PERS contract
February 1, 1988 Council adopts an ordinance amending
the PERS contract; staff recommends
that this be an urgency ordinance in
order for it to take effect immediately
February 7, 1988 Amendment effective for those employees
who opt for it
Staff anticipates that all safety employees will opt for this
benefit. The contract amendment will also be effective for all
City employees who begin work on or after February 7, 1988.
Reocommendation
It is recommended that Council pass the attached draft resolution
indicating the City's intention to amend its contract with the
Public Employees' Retirement System as related to providing the
1959 Survivor Benefit to safety employees.
GJC:pap
0 STATE CAPITOLIy ( ❑ 7777 ALVARADO ROAD
SACRAMENTO,CALIFORNIA 95814 s e Iii L i g SUITE 377
PHONE:(916)445-6161 PgisiatureLA MESA CA 92041
calif O11tiU PHONE: (619)237-7777
� ° h
Viiii
LARRY STIRLING
ASSEMBLYMAN, SEVENTY-SEVENTH DISTRICT
February 9, 1987
Dear Mayor:
Each year I rank the performances of all the retirement
systems in the State. You may be interested in reviewing the
relative performances of the funds in your district.
The left-hand column shows each system' s rank this year. The
next two columns on the right side show the return on investment
for each system for 1984 and 1985 . Finally, the far right-hand
side shows the change in rank from 1984 to ].985.
All of these funds have nearly identical investment
objectives. Therefore, their investment strategies should be
nearly identical . Their investment tactics, however, can be
enormously creative within the "fiduciary standard. "
Where those funds are performing below the median, serious
questions should be asked of the trustees and their advisors
regarding their policies .
I hope you will find this helpful.
Sinc ely,
ZI
LARRY STI ING
LS :kswl
enclosu e '
L-e./
L-7-04ttr
' .�-4-0.44-cr
Representing the People f El Cajon, La Mesa, Lakeside, San Diego and Santee
PUBLIC RETIREMENT SYSTEMS
PERCENT RATE OF RETURN ON INVESTMENTS (ROI)
RANK
CHANGE
ROI ROI 1984-
RANK COUNTY, CITY, OR SPECIAL DIST. 1984 1985 1985
1 Judges Retirement System 8 . 6 30. 6 33-1
2 Yuima Municipal Water District . 2 26. 1 54-2
3 Pasadena Fire and Police (3 . 6) 17. 0 56-3
4 East Bay Municipal Utilities Dist. 3. 4 16 . 8 51-4
5 City Of Santa Barbara 2. 3 16 . 4 52-5
6 Southern California Rapid Transit
District, Maintenance Employees 10. 9 16. 2 18-6
6 Southern California Rapid Transit
District, Non-Contract Employees 11 . 0 16 . 2 17-6
7 Clear Creek Community Svcs. Dist. 5. 7 16 . 1 45-7
8 Southern California Rapit Transit
District, Brotherhood of Railway
and Airline Clerks 10. 6 16. 0 21-8
8 Southern California Rapit Transit
District, United Transportation
Union 10. 2 16 . 0 24-8
8 Oakland Municipal Employees 13 . 2 16 . 0 6-8
9 La Canada Irrigation District 6. 0 15. 4 44-9
10 Stockton Metropolitan Transit Dist. 11 . 9 14 . 8 12-10
11 North Bakersfield Recreation and
Park District 10 . 8 14 . 2 19-11
12 Fresno General Service Employees 7. 5 13 . 8 38-12
13 County Of Santa Barbara 10 . 3 13 . 7 23-13
14 San Benito Hospital District 4. 5 13 . 3 50-14
15 Santa Clara County Transit District 10. 9 13. 2 18-15
16 Santiago County Water District 12. 6 13 . 0 8-16
17 Eureka Fire and Police 9 . 7 12 . 8 27-17
18 Exeter Irrigation District 10. 7 12. 7 20-18
19 Home Gardens Sanitary District 12. 7 12 . 6 9-19
20 City Of San Diego 8. 5 12 . 5 34-20
20 Orange County Water District 9. 0 12 . 5 31-20
21 Lindmore Irrigation District 13. 5 12. 4 4-21
22 Liberty Fire Protection District 10. 5 12 . 2 22-22
23 County Of San Luis Obispo 11 . 9 12 . 3 12-23
24 Alameda Police and Fire Pension
Plan 1079 and 1082 (0. 6) 12. 0 55-24
24 San Diego Transit Corporation 7 . 7 12 . 0 37-24
25 Richmond General Pension Plan 10. 0 11 . 9 25-25
26 Berrenda Mesa Water District 14 . 1 11 . 7 3-26
26 Oakland Fire and Police 10. 5 11 . 7 22-26
27 State Teachers Retirement System 11 . 0 11 . 6 17-27
27 San Jose Federated City Employees 10 . 3 11 . 6 33-27
27 Fresno Irrigation District 10 . 5 11 . 6 22-27
27 Otay Municipal Water District 10. 7 11 . 6 20-27
27 County Of Los Angeles 9. 5 11 . 6 29-27
28 County Of Merced 8. 6 11 . 5 33-28
29 Southgate Recreation and Park Dist. 10 . 0 11 . 2 25-29
29 Public Employees Retirement System 11 . 6 11 . 2 14-29
29 Wasco Recreation and Park Dist. 6. 2 11 . 2 43-29
29 Contra Costa County Water District 9 . 9 11 . 2 26-29
29 County Of Sacramento 11 . 6 11. 2 14-29
30 Sacramento Regional Transit,
Contract Employees 12. 0 11 . 1 11-30
30 Costa Mesa Safety Employees 11. 2 11. 1 16-30
31 Median Value all Systems 10. 3 11 . 0 23-31
31 County Of San Joaquin 11 . 0 11 . 0 17-31
31 County Of San Mateo 10. 5 11 . 0 22-31
31 County Of Tulare 15. 4 11 . 0 2-31
31 County Of Ventura 12. 3 11 . 0 10-31
32 Alameda-Contra Costa Transit
District, Union Employees 10. 7 10. 9 20-32
32 Alameda-Contra Costa Transit
District, Salaried Employees 10 . 7 10. 9 20-32
' 33 Saucelito Irrigation District 9. 5 10. 8 29-33
34 Legislators Retirement System 10. 5 10 . 7 22-34
34 County Of Marin 10. 6 10. 7 21-34
35 County Of Kern 7 . 2 10. 6 39-35
35 County Of Sonoma 9. 5 10. 6 29-35
35 San Jose Fire and Police 10. 7 10 . 6 20-35
35 Los Angeles Fire and Police 11 . 9 10. 6 12-35
35 Los Angeles General Municipal
Employees 10. 5 10. 6 22-35
35 City Of Pittsburg 13. 4 10. 6 5-35
36 Lakeside Irrigation District 10. 8 10. 5 19-36
36 Rainbow Municipal Water District 10. 7 10. 5 20-36
37 County Of Orange 10. 0 10. 4 25-37
37 County Of Stanislaus 10. 0 10 . 4 25-37
37 City Of Los Gatos 8 . 7 10. 4 32-37
38 Los Angeles Water & Power Employees 10 . 3 10 . 3 23-38
38 County Of Mendocino 10. 7 10. 3 20-38
39 El Nido Irrigation District 8 . 7 10. 1 32-39
40 City Of Adelanto 7 . 9 10. 0 37-40
40 County Of Fresno 10. 3 10. 0 23-40
41 La Habra Heights County Water Dist. 9. 6 9. 9 28-41
42 Bakersfield Fireman' s Disability
and Retirement 10. 3 9. 7 33-42
42 Piedmont Fire and Police 8 . 4 9. 7 35-42
43 Albany Fire and Police 8. 0 9. 6 36-43
43 CountyOf Imperial 11 . 0 9 . 6 17-43
43 Marin Hospital District 11 . 8 9. 6 13-43
43 Valley Sanitary District 8 . 4 9. 6 35-43
44 County Of Contra Costa 12. 7 9. 4 9-44
44 Tranquility Irrigation District 6. 6 9. 1 42-45
46 Valley Center Municipal Water Dist. 1 . 3 8. 9 53-46
46 County Of Alameda 9. 5 8. 9 29-46
46 County Of San Bernardino 9. 9 8 . 9 26-46
47 City Of El Cerrito 8 . 8 7. 5 38-47
48 Golden Gate Transit Amalgamated
Retirement Board 15 . 2 8 . 4 2-48
49 City Of Sacramento 9. 7 8. 2 27-49
50 City Of San Francisco 9. 2 8 . 1 30-50
51 County Of San Diego 8. 2 7 . 9 35-51
52 University of CA Retirement System 7. 0 7 . 7 41-52
53 Mesa Consolidated Water District 17 . 7 7 . 3 1-53
t
53 City Of Emeryville 5. 3 7. 3 47-53
54 Sacramento Regional Transit,
Non-contract Employees 5. 6 7 . 1 46-54
55 Long Beach Public Transportation
Company, Contract Employees 11. 3 6 . 9 15-55
56 Long Beach Public Transportation
Company, Salaried Employees 12. 8 6. 7 7-56
57 Fresno Fire and Police 7. 1 6. 2 40-57
58 Springlake Fire Protection District 4 . 9 4. 9 48-58
59 Richmond Police and Fireman' s
Pension Plan 7 . 5 2 . 2 38-59
60 City Of Ripon 4. 8 2. 1 49-60
61 Berkeley Safety Employees . 2 0. 1 54-61