04-10-2013 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

contribution" was a concern to all of the participants. As the Council may recall, after the 2007 increase, the significant pullback in 2008 triggered required contributions of over $30,000. Therefore, the challenging continues to be the balancing act of ensuring retirees are getting full value of the asset base when they retire versus putting the taxpayers at risk should a pullback in the markets occur. To help gain some perspective on this issue, other spreadsheets were prepared. The first is highlighted in pink. This shows the asset balance as of 3/31/13. You will see the percentage of funding has improved somewhat since the 3/14/13 calculation. The next sheet, highlighted in yellow, shows where we were at as of 6/30/12. You will note that the level of funding was quite a bit lower than where we are at today. Finally, the green sheet takes the asset balance as of 3/31/13 but does not show it growing anymore for the balance of the year. Without that growth projection, the only benefit increase that stays above 100% funding is a $25 increase. The last sheet attached to this memo provides a 10 -year history of the Funding Ratio (percentage of funding) based on the benefit level for that year. Handwritten in green is the city's contribution. Any amount over $15,000 was a "required contribution ". It is always nice to provide increases to the Relief Association. However, if the funding level is not sufficiently maintained, then the taxpayers must retire any deficits with additional tax levies. Based on this information, a prudent approach would be to ensure any increase does not drop us below 100% funding. If the market continues to perform well, we are not precluded from granting an increase at a later date. cc: Little Canada Fire Relief Association 2