12-19-11 Commission Workshop v MINUTES OF THE WORKSHOP OF ATLANTIC BEACH CITY COMMISSION
HELD IN THE COMMISSION CHAMBER ON DECEMBER 19, 2011 AT 6:00 PM
City Commission Members present:
Mike Borno, Mayor
Mark Beckenbach, Commissioner
Jonathan Daugherty, Commissioner
Maria Mark, Commissioner
Carolyn Woods, Commissioner (arrived at 6:15 p.m.)
Staff present:
Jim Hanson, City Manager
Nelson Van Liere, Finance Director
Donna Bartle, City Clerk
Nancy Bailey, Recording Secretary
The workshop, which was held for the purpose of meeting with the General Employees' and
Police Officers' Pension Boards of Trustees, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Mayor Borno.
Finance Director Nelson Van Liere introduced Jim Rizzo of Gabriel Roeder Smith and
Company, Michael O'Shields of Morgan Stanley, Scott Christiansen of Christiansen and Dehner,
and members of the Pension Boards, Tim Townsend, Vic Gualillo, Dennis Roberts, Harry
McNally, John Wolfel, Alan Gleit, and Bob Sternfeld. He stated they will talk tonight about the
rate of return. He stated also, when he scheduled this meeting, our actuary was completing our
annual actuarial valuation report. He stated this is the report that determines how much the City
is going to budget next year and has all of the information on our plan. He stated the plan
summary, all of the assumptions, our history, how we amortize our gains and losses over the
years, our investment valuation and our funding ratios all come from this report. He stated,
hopefully, these experts the pension boards hired and work with will be able to answer every
question they could possibly imagine on pension tonight. He stated first up will be Michael
O'Shields who will talk about the investment side of the assets.
Michael O'Shields, 2038 Beach Avenue, Senior Institutional Consultant and Sr. VP with
Morgan Stanley and financial advisor to the Pension Boards, stated he has over 20 years
experience in managing pension plans from global Fortune 500 companies on down. Mayor
Borno stated investment returns are Mr. O'Shields specialty and stated he would like to get a
total wrap on and for everybody up here to understand all the parameters of the formula that goes
in to putting an actuarial report together. Mr. O'Shields stated he will take his component of the
three professionals, Scott, Jim and himself, who all work as a team. His area with regard to this
is what has been on the front page of our local paper related to whether 8% return assumptions
are right for calculating pension costs. He stated what he has done is to give everyone a
simplistic overview of how Morgan Stanley arrives at their assessment of forecasting traditional,
long -term asset class returns. He stated when they are looking at a long -term asset class return
they are speaking of returns of 20 years out, or longer. He stated the reason is the pension
liabilities are going to run much longer than a 20 -year scenario so when you forecast strategic
asset class returns you don't want to look at a short-term tactical period of 1 -3 years, you want to
look at what would encompass the liability of the pension. He stated he handed out a stack of
papers to show them how Morgan Stanley arrives at forecasting their traditional asset class
return. He stated there are two things the Commissioners need to consider when looking at this.
He stated one is, who are the people and what are their qualifications that enable them to forecast
these returns and, secondarily, what is the process that they employ when they forecast these
Minutes — City Commission Workshop December 19, 2011
Page 2
investment returns, and, finally what are the actual forecasted investment returns for a 20 -year
plus time horizon. He pointed out the document, "Meet the Global Investment Committee at
Morgan Stanley ". He explained the Global Investment Committee is their top of the top
executives at the firm that are responsible for making global investment decisions on behalf of
the firm and the 64,000 employees that they employ. He highlighted the credentials of several of
the members of the Global Investment Committee including, Jeff Applegate, Willem Buiter,
David Darst, Gabriel De Kock, Joachim Fels, Tom Gallagher, Jonathan Garner, Ed Kerschner,
Adam Parker, Roberto Perli, Vincent Reinhart, and Martin Leibowitz, so the Commission would
be comfortable with the people that are making the decisions on forecasting these long -term asset
class returns. He stated this intellectual capital base feeds off of one another to form these long-
term assessments they are discussing tonight. He stated for Morgan Stanley to assume what the
rates of return are, you hire the best intellectual capital that you can hire in the global financial
workforce, and they believe they have done that at Morgan Stanley, as evidenced by their Global
Investment Committee.
He stated, secondly you have to have a model, referring to his handout "Forecasting Traditional
Asset -Class Returns ". He stated if they would read through his white papers it will give them a
comprehensive, detailed overview and may lead them to some other questions. He stated part
two is the process and the process at Morgan Stanley is to create return forecasts for the
traditional asset classes that lie at the core of the vast majority of investment portfolios. He
stated they use these forecasts to assist their clients in formulating their investment objectives
and setting related expectations. He stated furthermore they use them together with other
research input and a proprietary portfolio construction methodology to create asset allocation
model portfolios for their clients. He stated when you have a model to estimate long -term asset
class returns you have to first ask the question, are you doing it on an ex post basis or an ex ante
basis. He stated ex post is one of the mistakes that was made in 2001 -2002. He asked if they
remember the go go 90s where everybody made a lot of investment return in the 1990s.
Everything in the stock market was just go go go and no matter what you bought, it went up. He
stated Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan stated they had irrational exuberance in the
marketplace and made that the buzz word at the end of the 90s. He stated they all know how the
story ended in March 2000 — September 2002 when NASDAQ went down 70+ percent, S &P 500
down 50, because these types of momentum -based markets were not sustainable. He stated what
people had incorrectly done is they had based their valuations on ex post, which is basing their
analysis for future rates of return on past performance. He stated that is a no no. He stated, in
the model world, they believe that is not a methodology to be utilized, to look back at the past
and think because it is in the past that we have a predictable creator of what is going to happen in
the future. He stated if they are looking at what has just happened from 2008 until the rebound
in 2009 and 2010, down market in 2008, up market in 2010 and 2011 and we are looking back
and saying I'm just not comfortable, I don't think we can do it, look at how this thing has been,
it's just not a very appropriate viewpoint to take. He stated the way they do that is differently,
they look at their model from what is called ex ante which is based on future anticipated changes
in the risk premiums. He explained what risk premiums were for the asset classes referring to a
chart in his white paper. He stated the real risk -free rate of return is derived based on the
fundamental macroeconomic relationships and forward looking inputs where available. He stated
they ask what are the demographics and productivity trends which lead to the real potential for
economic growth. He stated this is like a strategic building block approach, one is going to lead
to the next, the next is going to lead to other and then they arrive at their estimate. He stated in
Minutes — City Commission Workshop December 19, 2011
Page 3
step 2 they look at what is the real cash return. He stated currently they are looking at a long-
term rate of return of 1.9% for cash; add into that an inflation premium which get them at a
nominal real return estimate of 4.2 %. He stated after getting the real cash return they are looking
for the real government bond return. He stated there has to be a bond premium over cash
because you are going to take a little more risk to invest in bonds so you have to be paid a little
more reward in order to invest in those bonds. He stated, currently, in the U.S. they add about a
90 basis point term premium, which results in an estimate of 2.8% for the long -term real return
on Treasuries. He stated adding the 2.3% inflation rate again gets them to about 5.1% for long-
term Treasuries. He stated after cash, after bonds, comes your equity risk premium which is
what is going to have to be paid in addition to a bond premium to take risk above what bonds are
going to offer me to invest in equities. He stated right now, historically, it has been about 450
basis points above what fixed income bonds offer. He stated currently the long -term nominal
estimate is 9.1% for global developed market all cap stocks and 9.6% for U.S. all cap stocks. He
stated he wanted to highlight the process of a two component step, who's doing it, what's the
process they are doing it with and now in part three he will highlight the results. He suggested
the Commission read this entire white paper because it certainly is a beneficial educational piece
that will help them understand forecasting long -term assets. He stated, with that in mind, he
directed them to the third piece, the 2011 paper. He stated these were the actual estimates from
the Global Investment Committee who used the model he outlined in part 2 and explained the
results. He stated on page 1 it discusses Return, Risk and Correlation Estimates for a 20 -year
time horizon and they do them for all the major asset classes utilizing the model he just outlined.
He stated page 5 showed the resulting estimates. He pointed out the ones they utilize in their
plan: cash (three month LIBOR) at 4.2 %; Global government bonds at 5.4 %; and U.S All -Cap
stocks at 9.6 %. He stated they split up the All -Cap stocks into Large -Cap Value stocks as well
as Large -Cap Growth stocks and used Mid -Cap Core stocks which are showing an annualized
return estimate of 10% and also used Small -Cap Value and Small -Cap Growth stocks which
have an annualized return estimate of 10.2 %, respectively. He stated they are involved in the All
Country World Index, which encompasses the world, not just Europe. He stated he believes the
Pension Board made a good decision a year and a half ago when they decided, given the
problems we were seeing coming available in Europe at the time, that they wanted to have
exposure not to a common index, which is the Morgan Stanley European and Far East Index, but
they wanted to have all countries worldwide so they weren't pigeonholed just in to Europe. He
summarized the three steps were who is it doing the forecast, what is the model they use and
what are the estimates. He stated he attached a copy of each investment policy statement for
each pension plan. He stated he will leave a lot of these types of comments to his colleague,
Scott Christiansen, regarding the legal aspect of these things but one of the things he wanted to
highlight was that they run these plans by a documented investment policy statement. He stated
what that is is the blueprint and the guiding principles that they utilize in the management of both
pension plans. He stated looking at the investment objectives on page 3 of the actuarial
valuation reports, in the box at the bottom under investment guidelines they will see a target
allocation. He explained a target allocation stating, in a normal functioning environment, they
would want their portfolios to be allocated to those asset classes at those percentages or target.
He stated then they have a lower limit and an upper limit. He stated since markets go up and
down, what that allows them to do is to give them a limit on what the minimum amount of
money they would want to have invested in equities at any time is and what the upper limit or
maximum is that they would want to have invested at another time. He stated they do the same
thing for international equity and fixed income. He stated that is what they call their strategic
Minutes — City Commission Workshop December 19, 2011
Page 4
weighting of the major asset classes. He stated you don't use cash in a pension, it doesn't make
sense at all. He stated from that strategic allocation they go to a further diversified asset
allocation strategy, utilizing the asset classes that he previously outlined in their estimates of risk
and return. He stated they break them down by Large -Cap equity, Mid -Caps, Small -Caps and
Fixed Income and they assign a weighting as a percentage of assets they will see in the table at
the top. He stated for general they have 27 %, in the Mid -Cap, 9% in the Small -Cap, 15% in
International Equity, and 40% in Fixed Income and you arrive at what they call a 60% equity,
40% Fixed Income diversified portfolio by those sub -asset classes. He stated they do the same
thing for the Police. He stated the Police have adopted a little more conservative stance and went
to 50% equity, 50% fixed income and they sub - allocated those to the various sub -asset classes in
the amounts shown. He stated once they publish their return forecast for 20 years, Mr. Rizzo
takes the forecast and aligns them in line with what you see in the policy statement. He stated
that then crunches out an annualized number. He stated this is just an estimate on an asset class,
not an estimate on the actual portfolio. He stated there is another whole part 2 to this. He stated
they then take on part 2 as a fiduciary to the portfolio of Morgan Stanley and review it with
another department, Investment Advisor Research. He stated they have their target asset class
they are trying to achieve and they don't just go invest in an asset class without any active
manager that would be in charge of picking and choosing what stocks they should own in that
portfolio. He stated they have a research advisor process that looks it over, constituted of 6,500
different managers and investment products, to determine which ones they believe are most
suited for their clients. He stated they screen the various money managers that have specialties
in the different asset classes. He stated they, as a fiduciary to the plan, do this screening on
behalf of the Boards. He stated this is an extra layer of assistance to the Boards to ensure they
are hiring the right managers. He stated it is also their responsibility ongoing to continue to
provide ongoing monitoring and review of all of those managers. He stated at Morgan Stanley
they come up with, from the 6,000+ things, their lowest list, which is the approved list that meets
their recommendations, they are better managers than most of their peers, and they rank them
accordingly and provide research on them and support them. He stated at the next level is their
focus list. He stated from the approved list, in the next two to three years, they determine which
investment managers they expect to significantly do better than a benchmark, such as the Russell
2000 for small cap stocks. He stated then they see who they feel, out of what their investment
advisor research says, is the very best. He stated the Global Investment Committee then says the
following, for their reasons (and they give a rationale in writing), are on our focus list. He stated
when they went to determine which managers they wanted to use for their pension plan, he
presented to the Boards three available candidates on their focus list for each asset class. He
stated they kicked the tires on them, reviewed them, and he provided them with comprehensive
research reports from investment advisors. He stated the global investment committee puts them
on the focus list, they talked about three managers in each category, and then the Boards voted
on which manager they wanted to pick as their favorite because he was comfortable with any of
the three because they have the best of the best minds saying that these three are suited for what
your clients want to do. He stated they now have a basis asset class saying, from some of the
smartest minds on Wall Street, that weighted accordingly, here are the returns we believe those
asset classes offer. He stated, now add investment advisor research, because you wouldn't hire a
manager with the idea that they are going to do worse than what you can get buying the passive
index. He stated that would be foolish to pay fees. He stated they could put everybody in a
simple index strategy, pay 25 basis points and have a nice day; so when you hire an active
manager you are hiring them on the thesis that they are going to add value above that benchmark.
Minutes — City Commission Workshop December 19, 2011
Page 5
He stated that means value is excess return above what the benchmark offers. He stated
following that deliberative process they believe they can do better than what the static asset class
is over the 20 -year timeline. He stated they certainly are not in this business to do worse.
He stated he did not come to discuss anything other than an overview at this initial meeting, but
he would be happy to come back and go into complex financial investment decision making
where they can show all the risk metrics they go through when they analyze these things. He
stated he would want to give them some background information first so when he talks about
correlation coefficients etc., they would at least have had the opportunity to read what a
correlation coefficient is and understand when he is using it in certain terms and why it is
relevant to those things. He stated he believes they are in a building process and he wanted to
start with the overview but they can go as deep and far now and in the future as they would like.
He stated he would give them his business card if they have any follow -up questions and he will
immediately respond to their questions and get them the answers they want. He stated he is in
favor of educating them and giving them the knowledge they need to help the City be the very
best it can.
Mr. Hanson clarified that both pension boards hired Mr. O'Shields as their financial advisor and
the last time they looked at all of the assumptions that go into the actuarial work that is sent to
Mr. Rizzo, he recommended that 8% was the number they should stay with. He stated the
Boards voted to stay with 8% and to change some other actuarial assumptions which results in
the report Mr. Rizzo will present. He reiterated that Mr. O'Shields' recommendation, based on
all of this, was that he thought 8% was the most prudent actuarial assumption for the long -term
gains of the mixed class of assets that they were investing in. Mr. O'Shields stated that was the
objective of his exercise that he just walked them through, the three step process of who is it
doing the estimation, what is the model they use for doing it, and what is their actual forecast.
He stated he believed when they went through those numbers they saw the smalls and mids at
10.4% and 10.2 %. He stated every February they revisit these assumptions because they know
all pension boards meet following December 31 with February typically being the next meeting,
and they all want to know starting the year out whether their assumptions have materially
changed. He stated he also included the February 2010 assumptions so they could compare
them. He stated to answer his question, it is absolutely yes, based on the assumptions they saw
on the 2011 they felt comfortable given the process, not only of their estimate of the asset classes
but of their investment advisor research and actually hiring the most suitable managers to
oversee those asset classes based on the weightings they designed in the investment policy
statement. He pointed out in the back of the 2011 white paper they also issued a 7 -year estimate,
which is an intermediate estimate. He stated the only ones that are mainly differing are bonds
because of their ex ante belief on what is going to happen going forward on yields.
Mr. Hanson stated there are some pension companies that have begun using slightly lower
estimated rates of return and that has given rise to some questions from this Commission and the
public whether this 8% is a prudent rate of return. He asked, if Morgan Stanley is involved in
recommending these same things to a number of public pension entities across the country, what
are most of them using right now for a rate of return? Mr. O'Shields stated he believes 8% is,
across the board, still the dominant chosen rate of return, whether a corporate or public plan. He
stated if people are making adjustments, they are minor and insignificant to 7.75 %. He stated
others have chosen to do a phase -in process where they go from 8% to 7.95% next year, to
Minutes — City Commission Workshop December 19, 2011
Page 6
7.90% the following, to 7.85 %, etc. He stated one thing they can assure themselves of is that if
they drop the expected rate of return then you automatically increase the contribution level. He
stated if they come short of the 8 %, and of two of the three years he has been managing the plan,
they had two years of positive returns significantly above 8 %. He stated the objective is to fund
the plan at the least cost. He stated they can learn from corporate America, where the Treasurer
says he doesn't want to throw his treasury dollars at the pension plan, he wants to get the best
rate of return they can while protecting their capital and put the least dollars in they can to fund
that future liability.
Mr. O'Shields further stated this European debt crisis is a problem; it is a global phenomenon
that is not going away anytime soon and is something that people like him and the professionals
at his firm are tasked to deal with. He stated they have to make those decisions and advise their
clients accordingly, based on the circumstances they find. He stated one key point they brought
up, that he believes is very important, is that these are tactical decisions, not strategic. He stated
when you are setting a strategic decision in an asset class you don't encompass the noise they are
talking about in a tactical way. He stated noise, being this European debt crisis, has nothing to
do with asset class valuations, it is an extension. He stated when the global investment
committee is figuring, they are looking at all the things that go forward ex ante, so you are
always going to have adjustments along the path. He stated they look out longer term annualized
and take it that way. He stated Mr. Rizzo is more qualified from an actuarial standpoint to speak
to contribution requirements and what happens if this and that in his world than in the investment
world that he is more qualified to speak to.
Mayor Borno stated he says that everything he works on in his category, to work on the 8% is in
20 year review objections. He stated our plan will be 30 -40 years impact on the employees,
depending on whether they are just starting and where they are at in the plan. He asked if there
is any correlation to any of that or is that just part of our annual review so we are constantly
updating this thing. Mr. O'Shields stated obviously when you change or modify benefits it is
going to affect the funding ratio of the plan. He stated going for the long term funding ratio is
what assets percentage they have to cover their liabilities, to pay those people out. He stated a
number of factors affect that ability to do that, i.e., what they have done to the plan itself, and
how they have either tweaked or modified benefits, etc. He stated in his world there are two
major parameters, interest rate risk and equity market risk. He stated what they diligently do in a
pension plan is manage those variables they can control; he cannot control plan demographics
and what is happening to the choices that they determine what type of plan structure they want to
have. He stated he can, however, control those variables under his watch, interest rate risk and
equity market risk.
Mayor Borno stated there were no further questions from the Commission and thanked Mr.
O'Shields for his layman's term broad overview and was glad he will leave his card and the
handouts he gave. He introduced Jim Rizzo, Senior Consultant & Actuary with Gabriel Roeder
Smith and Company, who will present the Annual Actuarial Valuation Report.
Jim Rizzo, 301 E. Broward Blvd., Ft. Lauderdale, Senior Consultant & Actuary with
Gabriel Roeder Smith and Company explained he was here to discuss the Annual Actuarial
Valuation Report and to continue on the discussion about the 8 %. Mayor Borno asked that he
continue with the 8% and then update them on the report. Mr. Rizzo explained their role as
Minutes — City Commission Workshop December 19, 2011
Page 7
actuary is two -fold, they are number crunchers and pension consultant and advisor to the Board.
He stated in the capacity as advisor, some of the areas of advice they do are plan design, benefit
levels, sustainability and they also advise the Board on actuarial assumptions, demographic
assumptions, turnover, retirement rate probability, salary increases and the long -term rate of
return to use in this valuation. He stated an actuarial valuation involves looking down the road
and making their best judgment as to what is likely to occur in terms of rates of turnover,
retirement rates, and other assumptions. He stated one of the most important assumptions they
make in these calculations is the projection of how much the pension fund will earn in the future.
He stated they have used 8% for a number of years. He stated these are forward looking, ex ante,
forecasts. He stated of all the actuarial assumptions, when they go to set them and they go to
advise a board of the assumptions, the one you look at the past at the least is the investment
return assumption. He stated for turnover, you want to look at the past, the rates of employment
turnover, retirement rates. He stated for the investment return, he doesn't want to say the past is
irrelevant because it is very important for context, but the investment return assumption is a
forward looking assumption. He stated these are long -term assumptions, 20 -30 years. He stated
there is an element of mid -term he will be addressing as well. He stated Mr. O'Shields is right
that 8% is still the most common discount rate across the country, although many governments
have been bringing that down to 7.75, 7.5, or 7.25 %. He stated his last comment was that their
job is to run the plan with the least dollars possible, which he believes is a shorthand view
comment, but it is more complicated than that because you need to take into account risk
management. He stated if it were just the least amount of dollars you could get away with, you
would ignore risk and ignore conservatism, etc. He stated, secondly, you have to maintain this
plan in an actuarially solvent manner. He stated their contribution requirements need to be set,
not just to minimize them, but to maximize benefit security. He stated pension funds need to be
financed in an actuarial sound, actuarial systematic fashion so over time the funded ratio of the
plan is moving toward 100 %; it doesn't have to reach 100 %, but it needs to be moving toward
100 %. He stated when they advised the pension boards regarding the discount rate, after all the
process was completed, their recommendation was 7.5% for one plan and 7.25% for the other
plan. He asked that they keep in mind, as they go through this discussion, no one has a crystal
ball; Morgan Stanley doesn't have a crystal ball, none of the experts listed have a crystal ball, he
doesn't have a crystal ball, you don't have a crystal ball, the taxpayers don't have a crystal ball;
nobody really knows for sure what the next 30 year rates of return will be. He stated he did an
interesting study a couple of years ago that is from 1926 — 2010, taking a 30 -year horizon as a
typical life of a pension plan and looked at rolling 30 -year periods to see what the rate of return
was for a typical 60/40 pension fund portfolio. He stated he used 30 and he used rolling periods
for particular reasons. He stated the ending date and length of time that you look at historical
rates of return will give you whichever answer you want to achieve. He stated if you want the
results to be really bad, look at the last ten years ending 2010 or 2011; if you want the results to
look really good, take the ten years that end in 1999. He stated ten years seems like a long time,
but in the context of the pension funds and cycles, 30 years is a better time period. He stated also
to avoid the selective choice of what the ending period is, they took every 30 -year rolling period
throughout. He stated he has been doing actuarial valuations since 1972 and it is interesting to
see at the beginnings of each of these 30 -year periods, asking himself if he were an actuary in
1952 doing a valuation would he really have assumed an 11% return. He stated generally
speaking, looking at those 30 -year periods they way out perform a typical 8% assumption, but
that is the past. He stated he could make a strong case for 8% by looking at the past; he could
make a strong case for 9% or higher by looking at the past; so the past is not irrelevant, but it is
Minutes — City Commission Workshop December 19, 2011
Page 8
the past and you can't drive a car by looking out the back window, shouting directions to the
driver. He stated these are forward looking forecasts. He stated since no one has a crystal ball,
what they do is maintain an inventory of investment consultants' forecasts. He stated not
wanting to listen to just one advisor they thought it advisable to make sure their Pension Board's
own consultant is on this list, which they are. He stated they have these ten investment
consultants and they all produce their own investment forecasts for each asset class and they then
take your investment portfolio and line it up with the investment classes they do forecasts on and
do a projection. He explained the rates of returns from each consultant, for the combined
portfolio of your percent of stocks, value and growth and percent of bonds, etc., using their
respective forecasts of each asset class, were 5.7 %, 6.1%, 6.4 %, 6.7 %, 6.7 %, 6.9 %, 6.9 %, 7.0 %,
8.0 %, and 8.3 %. He stated Smith Barney was the highest at 8.3 %. He stated then if you look at
the probability distribution of the likelihood, how likely it is. Ok, you say your forecast is going
to be 7 %, well that's a certain probability it is going to do, above, below, so if you looked at the
fiftieth percentiles of these, it is the similar kind. It starts at 5.4, 5.7, 5.9. 6.2, 6.2, 6.5, 6.5, 6.7,
7.4, and 8.0 %. He stated it really was a coincidence, exactly 8 %, Smith Barney's fiftieth
percentile for the Police Officers plan, exactly 8.00 %. He stated the average fiftieth percentile
was 6.4 for all of these ten different investment consultants. He stated here is where the long-
term and mid -term come in. He stated Smith Barney's forecasts are 20+ years; most of these
others are 10 -15 year forecasts. He stated currently most of the investment consultants who do
forecasting will not go out farther than 10 -15 years in their forecasts, so he is not surprised at all
that Smith Barney's forecast was higher because it is a longer term forecast. Although if the
other guys were right for their forecasts for the next 10 -15 years, in order for the 20 -25 year
period to be 8 %, the time from 10 -15 up to 20 -25 needs to be 9 -10% in order for it to average out
to 8% for the whole period. He stated when they advise pension boards to drop the discount rate
from 8% to 7.5% or 7.25 %, it wasn't because they thought 8% was wrong and 7.5% was right.
He stated nobody has a crystal ball and he would be foolish to be dogmatic about this. He stated
in the actuarial profession they have a guideline or rule of thumb in their standards of practice.
He stated they have a range of reasonableness which is basically the middle fiftieth percentile.
What they say is your discount rate needs to be in a range that is equally likely to fall in that
range as it is to fall outside that range, which means your twenty -fifth to the seventy -fifth
percentile of expectation. He stated 8% is within, in fact in this case it is near the top of the
average and in Smith Barney's case right at the fiftieth percentile. So 8% is within the range of
reasonableness for both plans. He stated he is not going to stand there and say 8% is wrong;
there is professional judgment and no one knows for sure what it is going to be. He stated the
reason they recommended coming down was if 8% is the fiftieth percentile, even under Smith
Barney's distribution, he didn't want the Board to be having a discount rate where they were
wrong half the time, so in the interest of some measure of conservatism they recommended they
bring it down. The second reason was, although he usually cautions clients not to look around
their neighborhood to see what everybody else is doing, there has been movement and
momentum to lower discount rates, not overwhelmingly, not a rush for the fence, but there has
been movement toward lowering discount rates. He stated the third reason they recommended
lowering it was that there is a headline risk to consider and related to that, if these other
investment consultants and their forecasts are right for the mid -term (10 -15 years) and you are
only going to be doing about 7% for the next 10 years, you are going to get beat up for 10 years,
always promising but in the next 20 years we will do so much better and it will average out at
8 %. He stated that was their argument, but again at the end of the day maybe 8% will be fine.
He stated the Board weighed these decisions and said well let's stick with the status quo for now
Minutes — City Commission Workshop December 19, 2011
Page 9
and then their decision is maybe we will look at this again and see what the pressure is, see what
the momentum is. He stated they decided to keep it at 8% and will look at it again another day.
He stated that concludes that portion of his presentation and he can continue the discussion with
Q &A and then he will go over a quick review of this year's report.
Mayor Borno stated in relation to these 8 %, this is for the ex ante, for the future, and asked does
anything come about through the impact of reduction of the homes, the ad valorem taxes, and
cycle of less money coming to the State because of reduced revenues and the impact of what has
happened in the last 18 -24 months. He stated it's cyclic, as anything in economics is cyclic, but
asked if that factors into ex ante for the future or does that impact any of their thoughts. Mr.
Rizzo stated he believes Mr. O' Shields should address the process more so than he, but when
you look at large cap equities, small cap equities, corporate bonds, real estate, private equity, and
these different asset classes, the economy affects everything. He stated the forces that have
dropped the property values and sales tax also dropped market values of stocks and earning
power of corporations. He stated he wouldn't say the drop in real estate affects the forecast but
there are forces that affect both; the economy, in general, and all the ripple effects of Federal
government borrowing and State borrowing. Mr. Rizzo stated over the years those who forecast
investment returns have been lowering their expectations on equity stock returns over the last
several years. He stated they don't drop them quickly from one year to the next but if you look
over the last five, six or seven years they have been coming down consistently, he supposes in
part because of the effect of the economy.
Mr. Hanson stated he wanted to pass on a concern to Mr. Rizzo that has been raised here in
previous meetings. He stated this may be a question best answered after he presents the actuarial
report. He stated between this rate of return possibly being a little higher than what some cities
have done and another concern that was raised that we are a small city and hence there is great
risk and with some number of employees retiring early or other factors that would cause risk on
the part of the city. He stated some people may think we are basically a house of cards and that
it can be very easy for a few bad things to happen and the taxpayers of Atlantic Beach will be on
the hook for quite a lot. He stated there are a lot of cities that have pension plans like ours but
the overall question is how risky is this business of being in a pension plan in a relatively small
city. He stated he doesn't know how small a city he deals with or if he has a point at which he
would say below this size you guys don't need to be in your own pension plan. He stated Mr.
Rizzo could either answer that now or after he goes through the pension reports.
Commissioner Woods left the meeting at 7:15 p.m. She returned at 7:18 p.m.
Mr. Rizzo stated from a risk management perspective Atlantic Beach is not too small to have a
defined benefit pension plan. He stated it may not be appropriate to have benefit levels that are
too high or exposure in equities that are too high. He stated risk management is an area that has
been overlooked in public sector pension management. He stated he recently wrote a paper on a
presidential task force with the president of the American Academy of Actuaries and others on
Bringing Enterprise -wide Risk Management Practices to Public Sector Pensions. He stated there
is a whole risk management feedback loop that decision - makers ought to embrace. He stated
most of the pension benefits are going to get paid for by the investment return that is earned over
the years. Pension benefits are paid for by the investment return, employee contributions and by
the taxpayers. He stated the taxpayers are an important part of this and it is the taxpayers that
Minutes — City Commission Workshop December 19, 2011
Page 10
bear the investment risk. He stated you, as agents for the taxpayers serve the taxpayers' interest
and also serve the employees' interest because they need to maintain an active and viable
workforce to provide municipal services to the community. He stated there is a balance that they
must strike, not the pension board, between benefit adequacy and benefit security on one side
and on the other side, affordability and sustainability. He stated that balance requires some
attention to risk management. He stated with 50% in stocks how likely is it going to be that the
contribution rates may go to 40% of pay; where is the tolerance level, the upper limit that would
be absolutely intolerable. He stated those are the questions they need to ask and get some
answers to those risk questions because it is those risk questions they need to address in order to
judge this side of that scale, affordability and sustainability. He stated on the other hand, as
managers of the work force that provides municipal services to the community they also have to
make sure the benefits are adequate and respectable for people who serve you 30 years and retire
and provide some respectable level of income. He stated, furthermore, the benefits have to be
competitive. They have to consider what it takes to hire quality police officers, quality
accountants, and quality public works employees. He stated that is the balance and risk
management is part of that process to make judgments on how the decisions they make about
level of benefits and the investment portfolio may affect that balance. He stated Mr. Hanson
asked a risk management question. He stated there are some who speak and write that
governments should bear zero investment risk on pension/retirement plans; that municipalities
should transfer all investment risk to the participants. He stated he has a whole speech about that
that he could give sometime but there is a judgment call as to whether participants are better
equipped or worse equipped to manage that risk than a city that has basically no end to its life,
they don't merge, go out of business, or sell themselves to someone else. He stated every once
in a while there are mergers of governments but generally there is a longevity to governments
and they are generally more equipped. He stated just the fact that the City has a longevity is no
reason to ignore risk, saying it will work itself out in the end. That's no risk management. He
stated there are two sides to the risk, those that say participants should bear all the investment
risk and those that say the government is better equipped to bear the investment risk.
Commissioner Daugherty left the meeting at 7:20 p.m. He returned at 7:24 p.m.
Commissioner Beckenbach stated, speaking on risk, there were a number of emails that came
through to him and he told different people he would bring them forward to him and it was really
not the size of the city but the size of the employees that we actually have. He stated he believes
27 is the number they are talking about for one of the pension plans and another was a little bit
larger than that, but when you are looking at 27 people, the question that was being asked really
was as far as the risk for that number how can you really. He stated he was talking this afternoon
to the Florida Pension program and they have a million people involved and we are talking about
27 people. He stated he would assume the risk to whoever is involved with that large pension
plan is much, much less than the risk that we have as a City for 27 people. He asked if this is
correct from an actuarial standpoint. Mr. Rizzo stated it is not much, much larger. He stated he
believes when you are spreading mortality risk, some people will live very long and some will
pass away earlier. He stated we now have 14 retirees in total and it looks like about 50
participants in the Police Officers plan, which is the smaller one. He stated that is not too small
to spread mortality risk. He stated if we had a contagion, it is like a disease spreading around, if
suddenly we had a mass exodus of retirees as soon as they can first retire, it won't hurt you
immediately but you will pay more for it over some spread over some period of time. He stated
Minutes — City Commission Workshop December 19, 2011
Page 11
on the other hand, what we are seeing is a mixed bag. Sometimes when the economy is bad
there is very little turnover and people defer their retirements until later because what else is
there to go to; there are no part time jobs, no full time jobs. He stated it kind of all works out; 50
employees is not too small for a defined benefit plan, but he believes there is some attention to
investment risk management in particular that needs to be addressed.
Mayor Borno asked, is it not true that anytime an adjustment is made in a plan, good or bad,
there is always a reaction and almost in all cases it usually comes out to be monetary. Mr. Rizzo
asked adjustment to the plan in what manner, the benefit change. Mayor Borno replied, right,
say you lower the actuarial from 8% to 7.5 %, there is a monetary impact that could be substantial
or could be minimal. Mr. Rizzo agreed. Mayor Borno stated when a new mortality table comes
out and people are living longer that will have another reaction to it. He stated anything that
floats through this equation, whether it is investments, people, early retirements, etc. there is
going to be a reaction. He asked if those are predictable. Mr. Rizzo stated about a year ago they
completed an actuarial experience study and this should be done every five to seven years. He
stated the National GFO recommends every five years. He stated what that does is recalibrates
all these primary assumptions so every five years or so you are readjusting the measurement
tools so you don't get off by very far. He stated there is not very much time in between. He
stated if they see something dramatic in between they can always change something to adjust.
He stated one of the things they did to one of the assumptions on the mortality table they are
using, RP 2000, is that it already bakes into it a projection scale for improving mortality. He
stated they already have built into the mortality table what they call projection scale AA and it
takes, for example, the probability that a 67 year old will die next year, 2012. He stated what
this table does is say let's see what a 67 year old's probability of dying will be in the year 2040.
He stated that is the table they are using. They have tried by using mortality improvement,
which the actuarial profession has said they need to start doing, already baked into the
calculations it avoids some of what Mayor Borno was talking about because there won't be any
sudden jumps. He stated the change in the assumption of the discount rate will cause some
amount of increase. He stated in their experience study, based on last year's results, they did
calculations based on the 8% and then did them based on 7.5% on one plan and did it on 8% and
7.25% on the other plan, their recommendations. He stated he believes between the two plans
the increase in the contribution requirement from going from 8% to 7.5% and 7.25% was only
about a quarter of a percent of pay. He stated of all the reasons they want to change or not
change the investment return, whether it increases or decreases their contribution requirement is
not a good reason. He stated it is either a good, wise forecast for the future to use to measure
these liabilities as best you can, or not. He stated he has had some governments say we can't go
down from 8.25% to 7.75 %, it is going to raise our contribution requirement. He stated that is
probably not a good reason to deny it; but if you think it is a better choice you should go with it
and live with it and if it costs you more money then so be it; maybe the benefits need to be
adjusted. He stated, on the whole, affordability and benefit levels need to balance. He stated the
decision to change from one discount rate to the next should be based on the judgment of the
reasons and the professional's input and the reasons they have given already.
Mayor Borno asked if there were any other questions and being none he asked that Mr. Rizzo
move on to the current report.
Minutes — City Commission Workshop December 19, 2011
Page 12
Mr. Rizzo stated besides being an advisor on plan design matters and actuarial assumptions and
other matters, they are number crunchers. He stated as a high level description of what they do,
the employer makes a promise to its employees and they have a formula that says when you
retire you will be able to retire on x% of your pay, whatever dollar amount that may be. He
stated they are essentially making that kind of a promise and his job is to calculate how much the
taxpayers need to put in the kitty every year in order to make good on that promise so that it's
not a hollow promise, so that the pension fund is solvent and on a sound actuarial track. He
stated another purpose of the annual Actuarial Valuation is to measure if you are on track, what
is your funding progress, your funded ratio, are you heading in the right direction, how fast will
it take to get there. He stated because they do this every year, it is a self - correcting actuarial. It
is almost like an actuarial audit. It is a self - correcting process; if you were contributing x% of
pay last year, certain events happened this year and you re- measure the calculation, re- measure
the costs and liabilities and they see whether you made progress or you lost ground or the
contribution needs to go up or it can go down, whatever the events. He stated that is part of the
actuarial valuation process, to determine contributions and to measure your funding process. He
stated they have two valuation reports in front of them, the General Employees Report and the
Police Officers, both as of September 30, 2011. He stated this is a useful report, if you have
insomnia just leave this at your nightstand and if you can't sleep just turn the light on and start
through this. He stated if you can get through about page 4 without dozing off then that means
you are a financial type and you love this stuff. He stated he could eat, drink and sleep this stuff
all day. He stated there is a lot of useful information if you get interested in this. He pointed out
the Table of Contents, B -1 Participant Data, the number of employees, active employees,
retirees; B -2 Annual Required Contribution; B -4 Financial Soundness of the plan, stating they
always include two measures of financial soundness, two ways to look at it; B -6 and B -7 History
of the Valuation Results and the Recent History of Required and Actual Contributions are
interesting; as well as all the Actuarial Assumptions they use, take a look at that. He stated in
Section C they have pension fund summaries, if they want to see what the categories the pension
fund is in and how much money went out for benefit payments, how much money came in, it's
all summarized there. He stated on page C -6 is the investment rate of return, history of
investment returns. He stated for those really interested in financial matters, look at Section D.
He stated Nelson just gets elated over this kind of thing. Financial accounting information, oh,
we love it. He stated Miscellaneous Information is about how many people came, how many
were in the valuation and left, and how many new people came, reconciliation. He stated
Section F is useful as a handy quick read on what the benefit levels are, how early can you retire,
what's the multiplier, details about the provisions. He stated in the last one, Section G, the State
of Florida has a specified protocol for what you need to disclose. Mayor Borno stated the
purpose for that was that all plans could be compared apples to apples instead of apples to
oranges. Mr. Rizzo stated yes, they added a particular calculation. He stated they had already
been doing the calculation, but they had been doing it at 8 %, some plans were doing it at 8.2 %,
some were doing it at 7.3 %, so they said everybody is going to do that particular calculation at
the same as FRS, which is 7.75 %, so they can compare a little bit.
Mr. Rizzo asked them to look at page A -1. He stated in the General Employees Plan it shows
that the contribution requirement went up a little. Commissioner Daugherty asked if it is
supposed to be blank under minimum required contribution, stating he noticed that number was
blank. Mr. Rizzo asked, minimum required? Commissioner Daugherty stated, yes, the
paragraph that says, "As illustrated in the preceding chart ... to support the current benefits for
Minutes — City Commission Workshop December 19, 2011
Page 13
the General Employees is $.... Mr. Rizzo stated he had a good eye, good catch. It never got in
there. He stated there should be a number in there. He stated the number is up there in the table
itself. He apologized. He stated the required contribution if made in equal installments should
be $1,044,396 for that year. He pointed out it went up a little bit, $46,000 out of a million. He
asked that they pull out the Police at the same time, to page A -1 also. He stated there the
contribution went down a little bit. He stated their Finance Director asked about whether they
could save money if the contribution were made entirely at the beginning of the fiscal year and
the answer is yes because, essentially, if you keep the money and the pension fund doesn't earn
the money until monthly deposits then you have to make it up, but if you make it all in the
beginning you save a little money. He stated the General Employees went up a little bit, and the
Police Officers went down a little bit.
Mr. Hanson stated the net between the two for next year, the bottom line, Atlantic Beach is going
to have to put in about $23,000 more to the two pension plans combined that are about $1.5
million total in yearly contributions. Mr. Rizzo stated that was right, very little increase.
Mr. Rizzo pointed out page D -3, stating they can see what the contributions have been in the
recent past. He stated General Employees at the end of 2002 was 11.41% of pay and up to
16.6% of pay for the year just ended. Mr. Hanson pointed out that what they euphemistically
call Pension Holidays that some cities take, and they have heard of Jacksonville doing that. He
stated, basically, what that means is they didn't put in what they were supposed to put in. He
asked Mr. Rizzo to confirm that Atlantic Beach has always put in the amount that he or the
preceding actuaries have said is appropriate to put in. Mr. Rizzo stated that was right. He stated
if they look at the last column, 100% of the required contribution has been put in every year. He
stated they may have heard that term, Pension Holiday, around the country. He stated they say
things are going well, we don't have to put anything in. He stated he believes New Jersey is one
of the famous ones. He stated Illinois put their contributions in but they borrow to do that. He
stated that was a good point. He stated in the Police Officers plan the City's contribution is
17.1% going up, then dropping down, and then back up to 26 %. He stated they have some
asterisks because during this time period benefits were improved a handful of times. He stated
when benefits are improved, contributions go up. Mr. Hanson stated that asterisk also denotes
benefits going down. Mr. Rizzo stated there was one that was a negative benefit change in 2005
and he does not remember what happened back then but there was a reduction in one of the
plans. He pointed out D -2, stating two of the most important things you want to look at in every
valuation are the contribution requirement in its context and the funded ratio. He stated in the
General Employees plan in 2002 the funded ratio was 77 %, went down to 69 %, went up to 72%
and is at 69.3% now. He stated the Police Officers plan in 2002 was 79 %, went down to 68 %,
up to 74 %, and now it is 62.6 %. He stated that funded ratio is the actuarial value of the assets
divided by the actuarial liability. He stated it is a measure of the long -term solvency of the plan.
He stated if you don't improve benefits and if the investment return behaves itself like it is
expected to, that percent of pay should be moving toward 100% over a period of time. He stated
lastly is page C -6 on Investment Return History and Mr. O' Shields may be able to give more
details on this. He stated the market value rate of returns are in the left hand column for each of
these two pension funds. He stated they sometimes talk about the actuarial value of assets or the
actuarial rate of return, noting it is not a good idea to fund your plan by using the strict market
value of the assets in the calculations. He stated that would just wreak havoc on your budget.
He stated in the 1990s if they were able to take dollar for dollar credit for all the great investment
Minutes — City Commission Workshop December 19, 2011
Page 14
return you had, you would have zero contributions. He stated on the other hand if you had to do
dollar for dollar charge on the loss years you would never be able to afford it and would have to
shut down half your city to pay the pension contributions. He stated it doesn't make sense to
plow a ton of money in during the bad years and no money in the good years, so they have a
leveling process. He stated the actuarial value of assets smoothes out over a five -year period,
these up and downs. He pointed out the right hand column was a lot more stable, although it
goes up and down too. He stated he believes there is a graph in the report that compares those
two, but they can see it smoothes out those fluctuations. He stated that was a quick summary of
the Actuarial Valuation, reiterating it is a handy tool to have to answer a lot of people's questions
about the plan provisions and statistics and history of the plan. He stated they might want to
even put it on the website sometime for people to look at.
Commissioner Daugherty asked what about projections for our contributions over the next ten
years, is that in this report? Mr. Rizzo stated no, they don't normally do that. He stated the
Actuarial Valuation Report just focuses on the next one -year contribution. He stated they could
do that; they have another engine after they do this valuation they can crank that does forecasts,
including this part of risk management, not just the forecast, assuming it is always going to be
8 %. He stated that is interesting, but it is a little deceptive. He stated it is more useful to
supplement that kind of forecast with one that also stress tests. He stated, for instance, what if
you didn't earn 8 %, what if you only earned 7% every year, or what if you had a big spike or a
big drop in a year. He stated that is the part where, instead of just the simple forecast, it gets into
risk management for you to make a judgment as to should we be this much in equities or we
shouldn't. He stated they could do that sort of calculation as a supplement. Commissioner
Daugherty stated they are looking into the future and trying to decide what we are going to do
with our plan. He stated he has other resources and people he knows that tell him for an
organization our size having a defined benefit that we have isn't within the market and as an
employer we want to stay within the market, of course, but yet we want to be as feasibly
responsible as possible. He asked what are the trends he is seeing in cities in Florida and
organizations our size. Mr. Rizzo stated a lot of cities are doing what they call pension reform
studies. He stated, in fact, Chris Lyons, the Finance Director of Sarasota and the current
president of Florida GFOA, and himself and Jim Lynn were doing a webcast for the Florida
GFOA and possibly for the Florida Mayors Association in February on pension reform, on how
to do it and what to expect. He stated they have done pension reform projects for probably 30
cities in the last 2 years and they involve projections and they involve cities where they will say,
you know, what if we just put all new hires into FRS or what if we put everybody, current
employees and new hires into FRS and kept what everybody earned so far, keep that running and
pay the frozen benefit over time, what would that do to contributions, what if we rolled back
benefits for the future, rolled back benefits to the 1999 levels or rolled back benefits to what they
were before a couple of these benefit improvements. He stated some are even asking what if we
froze the plan and put everybody into defined contribution plans. He stated they have been
doing these forecasts and for those they go out a 3 year forecast just to show how things would
behave over time. He stated they are doing a lot of that. He stated maybe a pension counsel can
add to what the landscape of what's going on in Florida. He stated very few cities are
terminating or freezing their defined benefit plans for public safety and going to defined
contribution plans. Commissioner Daugherty asked if that was because of the State mandate that
ties the funds to. Mr. Rizzo stated, no, he believes why they do it, why they have not done it, he
guesses there are a lot of reasons, unions, public pressure. He stated he has a whole speech he
Minutes — City Commission Workshop December 19, 2011
Page 15
gives as to why defmed benefit plans, when they are well run and well designed, even for smaller
governments, are a better benefit compensation tool than defmed contribution plans and believes
a lot of times there is pension envy. He stated there is this notion that 401K plans are good
enough for the private sector, they are good enough for the government sector. He stated there is
a lot of that momentum that we should not be in the risk business at all. He stated he is not sure
how you get out of the risk business. He stated when you hire an employee you have risk. He
stated your employees run tractors down the street, there is risk; you do a beach restoration, there
is risk. He stated you really have risk everywhere and it's a matter of managing your risk, so the
rhetoric that governments should be out of the defined benefit plan solely on account of being in
the risk business, he believes is a skewed view of risk. He stated you manage the risk and make
the defmed benefit plan affordable and sustainable, so rather than throw the baby out with the
wash, make it manageable. He stated if everybody feels like the benefits are too high, you roll
the benefits back to a more affordable, sustainable level rather than throw the baby out with the
wash. He stated he doesn't know if that shotgun approach answered his question.
Commissioner Daugherty stated he said what they are doing with the Police plans and asked him
what they are doing with the General Employees. Mr. Rizzo explained that, with General
Employees, he believes there is somewhat less push back from the workforce and others so there
have been more occasions where the government has closed the General Employee plan. He
stated there is a difference between terminate, close and freeze. He stated if you just say all new
hires are going into a defined contribution plan, that's one thing and that has not been uncommon
in the future. He stated some years ago FRS gave everybody a choice when you are hired, you
can go in the defined contribution. Some governments say there is no choice, everyone is going
into defined contribution plan from this date on and everyone else who is in the defined benefit
plan can stay in it. Others have frozen the defined benefit plan for even current employees and
new hires. You are in a defined contribution plan. He stated when you look at the numbers
that's not always cheaper, it really is not, because you have already made a substantial promise
to employees, an unfunded liability promise, and if you cut off the plan and say everyone goes
into a defined contribution plan you need to accelerate the pay -off of that mortgage because now
you have a closed limited group and it's not fair to taxpayers to continue to have future
generations of taxpayers for thirty years paying benefits for employees that we long ago retired
so you need to accelerate the payment pattern on that unfunded liability if you freeze the plan.
He stated on first blush he believes a lot of people feel like it would save money immediately if
they are paying 20% of pay now and if they put everybody into a 401K where we match maybe
our upper limit is 6% of pay. He stated besides addressing the benefit adequacy of that decision,
which you need to address. He stated you are not just replacing a 20% of pay contribution for
the future with a 6% of pay contribution; there are more moving parts that you have to address.
He stated it is a mixed bag around the State. In the public safety, there is a lot of brinksmanship
going on to take the process through special master back to the city. There have been some very
interesting cases where they basically just said ok let's just roll the benefits back a little bit
instead of throwing the baby out with the wash after a long arduous process. He stated Sarasota,
for example, is a classic of a long, expensive process. He stated his colleague at the firm, at the
very start of that process, had recommended a certain benefit redesign structure at the very
beginning and he doesn't know of how many tens or hundred thousand dollars of fees and
excitement and newspaper articles and telephone calls and a lot of energy later they ended up
with just about the same plan design that he recommended in the beginning. He stated that was
one that went a long way through the process. He stated ones like the City of Miami, where they
declared urgency and imposed certain benefit changes has a whole different flavor to it, but those
Minutes — City Commission Workshop December 19, 2011
Page 16
that don't impose the urgency have gone through a long process and many times come back to
keeping a defined benefit plan but just making it more affordable and sustainable.
Mayor Borno stated it was interesting that he mixed the two words periodically, pension and
benefits, which in reality it is a benefit plan with pensions being a portion thereof. He stated they
started a benefit review back in 2000 and started implementation in 2002 and are getting down to
the pension side of it with those recommendations from that committee. He stated it has been on
the radar for a long time, but how it is going to shake out is to be determined yet. Mr. Rizzo
stated that is an important step in the process to look at the competiveness of the benefit levels
and where you want it. He stated he doesn't know if they do that in all their benefits, i.e. health
insurance. However they look at the benefit policy, it should be designed to include the pension
benefit levels as well. What is an adequate replacement ratio, replacing your pre- retirement
income with a retirement benefit; what's the proper level.
Commissioner Mark asked, in Mr. Rizzo's pension reform study, is he also looking at what's
referred to as a hybrid plan which would have a combination of defined benefit and defined
contribution and what the sentiment is as far as that type of reform. Mr. Rizzo stated there are
several versions of what people label as hybrid; sometimes a hybrid is a mere combination of
two that may have a lower defined benefit formula then will also have a new defined
contribution account. He stated in the 457 plan, for example, you might add an employer
contribution account and have two of them and make it a combination. He stated there are other
kinds of hybrids where you have a defined benefit plan. Traditionally, the defined contribution
plan makes the employee bear all the investment risk; in the defined benefit plan the employer
bears the investment risk. He stated there are plan designs that are structured so there is a
sharing of the risk. In the defined benefit plan to share the investment risk in some ratios, in
some levels, between the employer and employee so it is not all or one. Commissioner
Beckenbach asked that he give an example of that. Mr. Rizzo stated there are three levers you
can use to do this. One is you can share the contribution. When the contribution amount goes
up, you can put a baseline and say if the contribution is 20% of pay, if it ever goes to 26% of pay
the City will pay 3% and the employee contribution rate goes up by three. He stated it is a lever
that shares the risk of each year's contribution requirement. He stated that hasn't been real
effective because at times when it goes up 10 -20% of pay how can you go back to the
participants and say you are just going to add another 10% of pay contribution to what you
already are putting in. He stated that is lever number 1. He stated lever number 2 is when you
have a combination, as Commissioner Mark described, where you put 8% of pay into a defined
contribution plan and x% of pay into the defined benefit plan and if the defined benefit plan goes
up the City must put the contribution in, there is no elective; you have to put the contribution in.
He stated you could then lower the contribution that goes into the defined contribution plan from
8% down to 6 or 4 or 3, so the grand total between the two is relatively stable. That is lever
number 2. He stated lever number 3 is more complicated. It involves a career average plan
where if the investment performance of the fund does really well, the employee can get more
than a 2.3 or 2% multiplier, they get more that year, for that year's salary. On the other hand if
the investment performance does really poor, they may only get a floor of 1% multiplier for that
year, so there is a risk sharing, not in the contribution, which the first two levers balance the
sharing on the back of the contributions going in one way or the other. With lever number 3, the
cost sharing is done by lowering the benefits; it's like a variable benefit formula. It varies
depending on the investment performance so that there is some sharing between employer and
Minutes — City Commission Workshop December 19, 2011
Page 17
employee. He stated he believes Wisconsin has one, but there aren't many that have done this,
that is similar to this variable benefit formula. He stated those are the risk sharing methods.
Commissioner Mark asked if Mr. Rizzo was finding that there was more conversation about
these types of hybrid plans or is it still such a new concept that they are still being explored. Mr.
Rizzo stated a lot of this is still being explored. He stated this process takes a long time. Once a
government starts pension reform, he thinks sometimes they have an overly optimistic view of
how quickly they can dispense with this and get on with life and it can be 18 -24 months later.
He stated they, in the community, are in the midst of these kinds of studies. He stated he
believes the most common one of risk sharing is to put a defined contribution plan in and a
scaled back, or hold back, defined benefit plan. He stated those are more common than the other
two as far as hybrid plans or combination plans. Commissioner Mark asked if it would be fair to
say, as far as the present Commission, for them to even begin thinking about pension reform they
probably would not be seeing anything as far as looking at any kind of firm possibilities, it is a
long -term process, as opposed to short-term, as opposed to within the next 60 days. Mr. Rizzo
stated sometimes when a client comes to them they already have it already worked out. These
are the four options they want to look at, they don't want to see anymore. He stated those are
more likely to go quicker, although those are also more likely to get a lot of push back from the
community and from labor. He stated if they feel like they have already figured out what this is
and are going to ramrod that, push that through, there is always somebody else saying, wait a
minute, what about this, you didn't think about this, you didn't consider this. He stated
sometimes it gets overwhelming and you do have to control it. You have too many scenarios.
He stated one of the things they try to do is say let's sit down and outline and limit the number of
scenarios to not only the most logical ones but the ones that have the most likelihood of getting
through the whole process, not a curiosity. He stated there is a balance there between being
thorough and yet not going crazy with scenarios, charts and graphs flying around the air.
Mayor Borno asked how much is the time factor governed or controlled by outside agencies
other than just doing the work at the local level. Mr. Rizzo asked, for pension reform. Mayor
Borno replied, yes. Mr. Rizzo stated the only outside force is when the State Legislature is doing
its thing we are all sitting there waiting saying wait a minute I can't be saying that we are going
to lose Chapter 185 money if you do this, this or this because the State Legislature may very well
change this. He stated that happens, there is a little of that going on during the legislative
session. He stated other than that the State agencies don't have any concern about it and the
government regulators in Tallahassee don't care. Mayor Borno asked if the Board of
Regulations impact it very much. Mr. Rizzo stated whatever they do still has to comply with the
State Statutes and the regulations but they don't oversee it. They do have to approve, like they
do any plan amendment.
Mr. Hanson stated he appreciated the presentation; Mr. Rizzo is one of the few actuaries in the
State that actually can speak plain English, which is very scarce. He stated there are a lot of
actuaries who will cover you up with details but he appreciates Mr. Rizzo's ability to try to
convey some pretty complex things in an understandable fashion.
Mayor Borno gave the floor to Scott Christiansen of Christiansen and Diner, P.A., attorney to the
Pension Boards to discuss the legal aspects of making changes and any other issues that may
arise.
Minutes — City Commission Workshop December 19, 2011
Page 18
Scott Christiansen of Christiansen and Dehner, P.A., in Sarasota, Florida, explained by way of
background, his firm represents about 165 different pension plans in the State of Florida, all
police, fire and general employee pension plans, and they have done so for over 30 years. He
stated this is what they do day in and day out. He stated they do represent pension plans, they do
not represent any cities or unions. They essentially represent Boards of Trustees, which is what
they do here. He stated they represent both the Board of Trustees of the Police Officers plan as
well as the Board of Trustees of the General Employees plan. He stated he wasn't given an
assignment as to what he was supposed to talk about tonight, so he can talk about whatever they
want him to talk about. He stated he can tell them this, he did see that they had a study that Mr.
Rizzo described was done by Foster and Foster and he has read that. He stated, for the most part,
based on what they were told in that study he believes it followed the law pretty closely. He
stated, obviously the issue with the police officers plan has to do with your ability to continue to
get the State funding you get. He stated there are some things you can do and some things you
can't do and if you do the things you can't do then you end up losing the funding you are getting
and that's going forward. He stated he was maybe asked to talk about pending legislation. He
stated there are a couple of bills pending in Tallahassee right now and they probably know that
the legislative session starts in January this time around, rather than March, because of the
redistricting. He stated there are a couple of bills that are pending but currently there is nothing
pending that has to do or would impose anything with regard to your general employees plan; but
with regard to the Police plan there are a couple of bills, House Bill 365 and the companion bill
Senate Bill 910 if they want to look them up, that describe some proposed changes to Chapters
175 and 185, particularly in the way the State money is allowed to be used, changes with regard
to the disability and other proposed changes that are less significant. He stated whether those
bills are going to be considered this time around, he has heard a lot of scuttlebutt through the
political realm that not likely are we going to see anything that does anything with pensions this
year, but who knows. He stated he believes they remember last year that they had a dozen
different bills that were proposed and what went in this end didn't come out the other end and
certainly there were a fairly small amount of changes that were dictated as a result of legislation
last year. That having been said, he stated he assumed when Foster and Foster were here that
they walked you through the Chapter 185 requirements and what you could do and couldn't do
and certainly if there are any more questions about that he can certainly handle those. He stated
with regard to the 8% investment return, which seems to have been the focus of this discussion
tonight, just to remind them that even though they are discussing this and looking at whether it is
good, bad or indifferent as far as the investment return that has been adopted by the Board of
Trustees, the reminder is that the Board of Trustees is solely responsible for the administration of
the pension plan and they have the sole authority to determine what that assumption should be,
as well as all the other assumptions. Again, with the advice of the actuary and consultant, and
they heard the advice of the actuary and consultant and they heard that we went through that
process last year when that determination was made with regard to the investment return
assumption we are using. He stated he just wanted to make sure it was clear, and he knew this
was a workshop tonight and not a meeting, but he doesn't think they were expecting to raise their
hands and say I move we go to 7.5% on the pension plans and then that would happen because
that wouldn't be appropriate. He stated that is the legal part of the discussion with regard to the
assumption with regard to the investment return and again, as Jim indicated to you, that is only
one of many. He stated this year we did not have another good investment return because of the
way the fiscal year fell. He stated if you follow the market at all you know that we were
probably up and well above our investment return assumption at the end of the June quarter. He
Minutes — City Commission Workshop December 19, 2011
Page 19
stated the next three months to finish up our fiscal year ended up being horrible and we ended up
finishing below our investment return assumption, whether it was 7.5 or 8 %, we finished below
that. He stated they saw that that underperformance had a fairly minimal impact on the actuarial
valuation that was just delivered to them and they didn't ask why. He stated he asked Jim
beforehand and there were other assumptions in there that he makes in order to come up with the
funding requirement each year, one of which is the salary increases. He is assuming that each
year your employees are going to get x% of salary increases. He stated if they don't get those
increases you can appreciate what the effect on that would be, whereas when you don't make the
investment assumption that means the cost goes up, but if you don't give the amount of salary
increases that they are expecting you to give, and there is another assumption for that, that has
the effect of bringing down the funding. He stated those two things can obviously offset one
another, maybe not perfectly but certainly one helps, the salary assumption, not good for the
employees when they don't get the increases, but certainly it helps the funding requirement of
the pension plan. He stated he wants to answer any questions they have on the legal side. He
stated they need to remember he represents the Board of Trustees and if they want truly an
attorney to represent the City with regard to advice regarding changes to the pension plan then
they should do just that. He stated if they ask him a question, he will certainly give an answer to
the best of his ability, if they have any specific questions.
Mayor Borno stated one thing he found very interesting that he brought up was that the Board
has the responsibility and the authority but yet the Commission can make recommended changes
through their negotiations with the Unions. Mr. Christiansen stated not to the assumptions in the
valuation. He stated with regard to benefits, yes. He stated that is why they are here, to make
sure everyone understands who is doing what and who has the authority to do what.
Mr. Hanson stated Mr. Christiansen may be uniquely qualified to answer this question. He stated
there has been some discussion about the time it takes to make pension changes. If the
Commission decided they would want to instruct our Union negotiation team to try to negotiate
some changes to the pension plan, in Florida there are a number of laws that have to be followed,
a number of requirements and mediation and that sort of thing. He stated they have heard stories
of some cities taking a long time and asked what Mr. Christiansen's experience in terms of
getting major pension plan changes done and is that within our control or is that basically just a
process you have to go through by State law or how quick could the Commission expect to have
changes made if they decide they want changes. Mr. Christiansen stated, as he said earlier, he is
not a union attorney, he doesn't represent unions, he doesn't represent cities with respect to
negotiations either but often times the pension boards will act as a resource for both sides
because when they are negotiating can we do this, can we do this, I am often asked are we
allowed to do this and if we do this what happens. He stated the answer is probably different
with respect to police officer plans and general employee plans. Police officer plans, assuming
that you want to continue to receive the funding that you get from Tallahassee, obviously what
you negotiate and what you can do is more limited than what you may be able to do with the
general employees. He reminded them the general employee plan does not get any funding from
the State so there are less restrictions on what you are permitted to do with regard to the general
employees plan. He stated the other factor is the union. If you have a union for either police or
general or both, as he understands it, pension benefits are negotiable and you have to go through
that process before you can adopt an ordinance to make changes to the pension plan. He stated
that is the process that has taken place in all of the cities where they have had changes made. He
Minutes — City Commission Workshop December 19, 2011
Page 20
stated if there are no unions obviously you can move more quickly. He stated they have had that
happen as well. He stated they have not had any police, although they do represent the Sarasota
police plan and came close to getting a defined contribution plan for them there, but as Jim
indicated they saw the light and decided not to get rid of their defined benefit plan. He stated
they made changes in the defined benefit plan and, as such, they continue to get the State money.
He stated that was done at the very last minute, as Jim indicated, with a lot of work by both sides
as far as deciding what was ultimately going to happen. He stated they have not had any other
police plans go to a defined contribution plan or do anything else that resulted in the loss of their
State money. He stated maybe that is the question he is asking. He stated that is just based on
the plans they represent. He stated they have not had any police or fire plans lose their State
money as a result of changes. Mr. Hanson stated in Sarasota, where Mr. Christiansen is from, he
understands this took approximately two years to get to the point of making a few changes. Mr.
Christiansen stated it was negotiated so there was a lot of negotiation that went on there as well.
Mr. Hanson asked if that was because of extra negotiations that you expect to go through or
would that be a normal expectation. Mr. Christiansen stated his recollection was that, his partner
does the police not him, but his recollection was that it went to impasse and that process takes a
fair amount of time. He stated Port Orange is in the same process right now. He stated the city
there is proposing some changes of benefit reductions to their fire fighters pension plan and they
obviously have a union there and they went to impasse and are going through the whole process
as well. He stated it seems to him they have been working on that for a year and a half, close to
two years as well. He stated they may end up ultimately, if they do what the city proposed to do
there, they may well lose their State money as a result of the changes. He stated that is certainly
a factor that should be considered in deciding what they are going to do and not going to do.
Commissioner Woods stated time is money and asked if that is relevant here. Mr. Christiansen
stated he was not sure in what context she was talking about. Commissioner Woods stated she is
assuming if we go through a two year process with attorneys involved on all sides it ends up
getting expensive. Mr. Christiansen stated, true, it is not always the attorneys that have the cost,
but yes there is obviously some spent in doing negotiations, etc. and going to impasse and that
whole process. He stated he was sure they have been through that a time or two over the years
and certainly there is some money spent in that effort.
Mr. Hanson asked if Mr. Christiansen represents 165 plans in Florida what are most of them
doing. He stated he guesses every city in the State is facing the same economic pressures, with
lowered property values, etc., so probably every pension plan in the State is having lower funded
ratios dropping because of that over years, so we aren't unique. He asked what are most of these
doing. Mr. Christiansen stated most cities are doing the studies similar to what you did. He
stated he has kind of given you an indication as to where we are right now with regard to police,
fire and general employee plans. He stated, as Jim indicated, general employee plans, since they
have less restrictions on what they are allowed to do and not allowed to do, we have had some
freezing, some closing, benefit reductions, all of which can be done and not affect funding from
the State, because there is no funding from the State. He stated so that has happened in some
places. Mr. Hanson asked in a lot of them, or most of them. Mr. Christiansen stated no, not
most of them. He would say of the ones they have, closing, closing means the plan is shut down
but the current people who are in the plan continue to accrue benefits but no one else is allowed
in; new employees are in some other program. He stated he believes this was in your Foster and
Foster; he thinks he explained that to you as well. He stated they have had a couple who have
Minutes — City Commission Workshop December 19, 2011
Page 21
done that. He stated freezing, which is basically just what it sounds like, you freeze the plan, no
one accrues any more benefits and typically there may be a defined contribution plan. He stated
the one he is thinking about, they set up a defined contribution plan and all of the current people,
everybody, went into the defined contribution plan going forward, but the people who had
benefits had a frozen benefit that they could ultimately draw at the point where they were
otherwise eligible for normal or early retirement. Mr. Hanson asked how many of 165 clients.
Mr. Christiansen stated maybe two or three general employee plans. He stated it has not been a
mass exodus by any means, but others are doing kind of what they are doing, looking at what the
options are and weighing the choices. Mr. Hanson stated they are making changes to their DB
plans, he guesses that is what he is saying. Mr. Christiansen stated DB, yes, and there are some
changes being made to DB plans; he has a couple that are in the process of doing that as well,
reducing the benefits in the DB plans, going forward, understanding that you can't take away
what anybody has already approved. He stated typically it is going forward and sometimes it is
only for new employees. He stated for new employees it is a little easier to reduce benefits for
people who haven't been hired yet. He stated it is a little more difficult to reduce benefits for
people who are currently working here but obviously the savings impact is not as great when you
don't include the current people. He stated they have had a few general employee plans that are
looking at the possibilities of reducing those benefits, but still keeping the defined benefit plan.
He stated the nice thing about that, with the defined benefit plan is if you reduce the benefits, say
you reduce the multiplier, when times get better you can come back if you still have the DB plan
and improve the benefits to include improving the benefits where you reduced the multiplier. He
stated it is fixable in his mind. When you throw out the whole plan and go to a DC plan it is a lot
harder to do that. Mayor Borno asked if there were any other questions from the Commission.
There were none. Mayor Borno stated he greatly appreciated Mr. Christiansen earnestly sitting
here almost two hours. Mr. Christiansen stated yes and everything they said he already knew,
although Jim said some new things he didn't know about so it was worth the time; it was a
pleasure to come out and he was glad he got a chance to meet everybody. He stated they do have
some things they need to do to the current plan, regardless, so he hopes they are mindful of that
as well.
Mayor Borno thanked Misters O'Shields, Rizzo and Christiansen for the reports tonight and
spending their time and efforts and stated more so they need to thank all of their Pension Board
Trustees. He stated they are volunteers and are the ones who have done a phenomenal job, past,
current and in the future and greatly appreciates every one of them for putting their time and
talents forward for these things. He stated it is extremely critical as they all know, since they
work in it all the time. He stated thanks is not really cutting it very well; they really do a fine job
and he personally appreciates it and is sure the rest of the Commission does, too.
Mayor Borno opened the Courtesy of the Floor to Visitors.
Bill Mayhew, 1870 N. Sherry Drive, addressed interest rates. He stated he believes they are
pretty much on the same page on interest rates. He stated he does not know why the Board used
8 %, he provided them over and over again nationally recognized forecasters that have shown the
rates to be between 5 — 8 or so percent and those 8 percents were on equity markets. He stated
your own pension actuary has used 5.7 — 8.3% and recommended lower so he won't dwell on
that. He stated he personally would certainly not want the fiduciary responsibility to be using an
8% return in view of the national companies, in spite of what this one company is saying and
Minutes — City Commission Workshop December 19, 2011
Page 22
when your own pension actuary is recommending lower. He stated he really appreciated Mr.
Rizzo's program on actuarial assumptions and thought it was excellent. He stated he talked to
three actuaries last week, two who were cooperative, and both said they thought our plans were
theoretically too small to be highly predictable. He stated if they don't understand the basic
statistical stuff about the law of large numbers and distribution curves and standard deviations
and confidence limits, random fluctuations, it is very hard to really grasp the significance of what
happens to one of these changes as it flows through. He stated he would offer his services to
anybody up here who would like to get a little basic refresher course in Statistics 101. He stated
one specific question that he was wanting to give is what is their confidence level in a plan of 27
people. He stated in these actuaries he talked to he used 27, not 50, but he didn't get to do that.
He stated he wishes we had gotten a range of assumptions when they had this study done. He
stated we use 8 %, why didn't we use an 8, why didn't we use a 7.5 and a 7 to get a range of
possible outcomes. To pick this 8 %, which is on the outside limits of the projections of
everybody other than Morgan Stanley just doesn't seem reasonable. He stated we should have
gotten a range. He stated the stress test, as the actuary was talking about. He stated the financial
history that we have seen this plan speaks for itself. He stated contributions every year are
getting larger and larger and the unfunded liabilities are getting deeper and deeper and that is
using that 8% assumption. He stated had they used 7.5% assumption the unfunded liability
would be even higher. He stated there will never be a better time than right now to get out of
these failed programs, there just won't be a better time that he can see. We need to freeze the
plans we have and go to defined contribution plans. He stated as long as we are in these defined
benefit plans, you are not going to know what the future is going to bring. Every year we are
going to have to have new assumptions done, every year we are going to have to worry about
what the contribution levels are going to be and it's going to be a never ending process. He
stated he would ask all of them to please look at the facts of the decisions that are going into the
decisions you will make. He stated don't spend too much on your personal feelings. He stated
the facts are that these benefit levels we have had have been too generous, the plans are too small
to be reasonably predictable, we have been using overly optimistic assumptions and the financial
results speak for themselves. He stated he believes the long -range success of these plans would
best serve the interest of employees and taxpayers if we can get to a plan that we can understand
and know what our costs are going to be. Thank you.
No one else from the audience spoke so Mayor Bomo closed the Floor to Visitors.
There being no further discussion by the City Commission, Mayor Bomo declared the meeting
adjourned at 8:30 pm.
Nancy E. ley
Recording Secretary