Agenda Item No: 6.d Meeting Date: July 17, 2017

 

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

Department: Finance


Prepared by: Mark Moses,

Finance Director

City Manager Approval:


TOPIC: GRAND JURY REPORT ON FUNDING EMPLOYEE PENSIONS


SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL RESPONSE TO THE MAY 25, 2017 MARIN COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT ENTITLED “THE BUDGET SQUEEZE: HOW WILL MARIN FUND ITS PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PENSIONS?”


RECOMMENDATION: ACCEPT REPORT AND ADOPT RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This staff report provides information about the Grand Jury Report entitled “The Budget Squeeze: How Will Marin Fund Its Public Employee Pensions?” and staff’s proposed response. The Report requests a response from the City for three of the recommendations contained in the report.


BACKGROUND: The 2016-2017 Marin County Grand Jury has issued its report, dated May 25, 2017 and made public on June 5, 2017, entitled “The Budget Squeeze: How Will Marin Fund Its Public Employee Pensions?” In this report, the Grand Jury sought to offer clarity to the issue of funding defined benefit pensions and encourage public agencies to provide greater transparency to their constituents.


A Special Joint City Council Pension-OPEB Subcommittee and City Council Finance Committee meeting was held on June 6, 2017, at which time the findings, recommendations and appropriate responses were discussed.


ANALYSIS: Based on the focus of the recommendations, the City appears to be on track to satisfy the expectations of the Grand Jury with respect to fiscal management of its pension obligations.


The City of San Rafael does have a relatively high pension contribution/revenue ratio, and expects that this relationship will continue for many years. This burden is partially a result of offering retirement benefits that were competitive with those offered throughout the State. Recent reforms have resulted in less generous benefits for new employees. The City has documented its efforts at pension reform at http://www.cityofsanrafael.org/pension- retiree-health/ .


In 2011, San Rafael lowered the benefit for new miscellaneous employees from 2.7% to 2%. It did not lower the benefit rate for new public safety employees, but reduced their cost of living allowance (COLA) in retirement from 3% to 2%. It also changed the Final Average Pay used for to calculate the pension benefit from the last year’s salary to the average of the final three years’ salary.


In 2013, the City further reduced new employee benefits after the implementation of California’s Public

Employees’ Pension Reform Act (PEPRA). New miscellaneous employees must wait until age 62 to receive benefits, which continue to be based on 2% per year times final average pay. For new safety employees, the rate is now 2.7% instead of 3% while the retirement age has risen from 55 to 57. Most employees will be eligible for the pre-2011 retirement benefits for several years to come; however, the City has already experienced some fiscal relief as new employees have replaced retirees.


Also contributing to the City’s relatively high annual pension costs is the aggressive approach its plan administrator, the Marin County Employee Retirement Agency (MCERA) is taking toward paying down unfunded liabilities. Most plans, including those administered by CalPERS and other county systems, amortize their unfunded balances over a period of 30 years; MCERA has implemented a 17-year amortization period for the largest portion of the liability. More rapidly amortizing the unfunded liability promotes fiscal sustainability, as it ensures a more reliable path to fully funding the benefit.


The City was not directed by the Grand Jury to respond formally to any of the findings. One finding, F3, asserted that all Marin County agencies will see significantly higher required pension contributions in the next few years, as a result of the recent lowering of the discount rates by MCERA, CalPERS and CalSTRS. The City does not believe that this assertion is accurate with respect to those agencies under MCERA. MCERA lowered its discount rate from 7.50% to 7.25% for the actuarial valuation as of June 30, 2014. The contributions associated with this increase have been fully implemented. The current fiscal year (FY17-18) is the third year for which the new discount rate is being applied. Thus, the lowering of the discount rate by MCERA will not result in significantly higher rates in the next few years by the agencies that participate in its plan. Staff recommends that this be brought to the attention of the Grand Jury in its response.


The Grand Jury directed the City to respond to three recommendations, R3, R4 and R8. Following consultation with the City Council Pension-OPEB Subcommittee and City Council Finance Committee, staff has prepared the following responses for the consideration of the full City Council:


R3. Agencies should publish long-term budgets (i.e., covering at least five years), update them at least every other year and report what percent of total revenue they anticipate spending on pension contributions.


Response: The City maintains a three-year forecast for its General Fund, updated a minimum of twice annually. This forecast includes projected spending on pension contributions. The City believes that this is sufficient for the purpose of identifying and funding its pension-related costs.


R4. Each agency should provide 10 years of audited financial statements and summary pension data for the same period (or links to them) on the financial page of its public website.

Response: The City’s website provides links to audited financial statements going back to the year ended June 30, 2000. Under GASB 68, 10-year pension data is required to be disclosed in the City’s financial statements as required supplementary information. Due to the methodology and format changes under GASB 68, the new 10-year history is in the process of being built, with each new reporting year. FY16-17 will mark the third year that the City reports under this format.


R8: Public agencies and public employee unions should begin to explore how introduction of defined benefit contribution programs can reduce unfunded liabilities for public pensions.


Response: The existing unfunded liabilities have already been incurred. As such, new or supplementary programs will not reduce these liabilities. The costs associated with terminating the current defined benefit

plan would be prohibitive (requiring outlay of hundreds of millions of dollars). The ability to modify the structure of the plan (e.g., to make room for a defined contribution plan) would require changes to the statutes that govern plans under the County Employees Retirement Law of 1937, in addition to negotiating changes with the affected labor units.


The City is supportive of any and all legal alternatives that can be negotiated with labor groups to limit future financial exposure.


ACTION REQUIRED: To comply with the applicable statute, the City’s response to the Grand Jury report is required to be approved by Resolution of the City Council and submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Marin County Superior Court and the Foreperson of the Grand Jury on or before September 5, 2017. A proposed Resolution (Attachment B) is included that would approve staff’s recommendation for the City’s response (Attachment C).


RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution approving the proposed response to the Grand Jury report and authorizing the Mayor to execute the response.


ATTACHMENTS:

  1. Grand Jury Report “The Budget Squeeze: How Will Marin Fund Its Public Employee Pensions?” dated May 25, 2017.

  2. Resolution

  3. Proposed Response (attachment to Resolution)

    2016–2017 MARIN COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY

    The Budget Squeeze

    How Will Marin Fund Its Public Employee Pensions?


    Report Date: May 25, 2017

    Public Release Date: June 5, 2017

    Marin County Civil Grand Jury


    The Budget Squeeze

    How Will Marin Fund Its Public Employee Pensions?

    SUMMARY

    Twenty years ago, the only people who cared about public employee pensions were public employees. Today, taxpayers are keenly aware of the financial burden they face as unfunded pension liabilities continue to escalate. The Grand Jury estimates that the unfunded liability for public agencies in Marin County is approximately $1 billion.

    In 2012, the state passed the California Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA), which reduced pension benefits for new employees hired after January 1, 2013. PEPRA was intended to produce a modest reduction in the growth rate of these obligations but it will take years to realize the full impact of PEPRA. In the meantime, pension obligations already accumulated are undiminished.

    This report will explore several aspects of this issue:


    It’s Worse than You Thought – While a net pension liability of $1 billion may be disturbing, the true economic measure of the obligation is significantly greater than this estimate.

    The Thing That Ate My Budget – The annual expense of funding pensions for current and future retirees has risen sharply over the past decade and this trend will continue; for many agencies, it is likely to accelerate over the next five years. This will lead to budgetary squeezes. While virtually every public agency in Marin has unfunded pension obligations, some appear to have adequate resources to meet them, while many do not. We will look at what agencies are currently doing to address the issues and what additional steps they should take.

    The Exit Doors are Locked – Although there are no easy solutions, one way to reduce and eliminate unfunded pension liabilities in future years would be transitioning from the current system of defined benefit pension plans to defined contribution pension plans, similar to a 401(k). However, this approach is largely precluded by existing statutes and made impractical by the imposition of termination fees by the pension funds that manage public agency retirement assets.

    The Grand Jury’s aim is to offer some clarity to a complex issue and to encourage public agencies to provide greater transparency to their constituents.

    BACKGROUND

    Defined benefit pension plans are a significant component of public employee compensation. These plans provide the employee with a predictable future income stream in retirement that is protected by California Law.1 However, the promise made by an employer today creates a liability that the employer cannot ignore until the future payments are due. The employer must contribute and invest funds today so that future obligations can be met when its employees retire. Failing to set aside adequate funds or investing in underperforming assets results in a funding gap often referred to as an unfunded pension liability. In order to be consistent with

    Governmental Accounting Standards Board’s (GASB) terminology, this paper will refer to the funding gap as the Net Pension Liability (NPL).

    Actuaries utilize complicated financial models to estimate the Total Pension Liability, the present value of the liabilities resulting from pension plan obligations. Pension plan administrators employ sophisticated asset management strategies in an effort to meet targeted returns required to fund future obligations. Nevertheless, the logic behind pension math can be summed up in a simple equation: Total Pension Liability (TPL) - Market Value of Assets (MVA)

    = The Net Pension Liability (NPL). The NPL represents the funding gap between the future obligations and the funds available to meet those obligations. Conceptually, it is an attempt to answer the question: “How much would it be necessary to contribute to the plan today in order to satisfy all existing pension obligations?”

    California is in the midst of an active public discussion about funding the retirement benefits owed to public employees. These retirement benefits have accumulated over decades and are now coming due as an aging workforce feeds a growing wave of retirements. The resulting financial demands will place stress on the budgets of public agencies and likely lead to reduced services, increased taxes or both.

    The roots of the current crisis in California stretch back to the late 1990’s, when the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) held assets well in excess of its future pension obligations. The legislature approved and Governor Davis signed SB 400, which provided a retroactive increase in retirement benefits and retirement eligibility at earlier ages for many state employees. These enhancements were not expected to impose any cost on taxpayers because of the surplus assets held by the retirement fund. However, the value of those assets fell sharply as a consequence of the bursting of the dotcom bubble in the early 2000s and the Great Recession

    starting in 2008. (CalPERS suffered a 24% decline in the value of its holdings in 2009 alone.2)

    Where there had been surplus assets, the state now has large unfunded liabilities.


    The following graph illustrates the problem. If you had invested $1,000 in 1999, when the decision to enhance retirement benefits was made, and received a return of 7.50% annually — a


    image

    1 California Public Employee Retirement Law (PERL) January 1, 2016.” CalPERS.

    2 Dolan, Jack. “The Pension Gap.” LATimes.com. 18 Sept. 2016.

    commonly used assumption of California’s pension fund administrators — your investment would have grown to about $3,500 by the end of 2016. By contrast, had you received the returns of the S&P 500 over that same period, you would have only about $1,500, less than half of what had been assumed.


     

    Last year, Moody’s Investors Service reported that the unfunded pension liabilities of federal, state and local governments totaled $7 trillion.3 Closer to home, the California Pension Tracker, published by the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, places the state’s aggregate unfunded pension liability at just under $1 trillion.4

    Marin has not been exempt. Recent published estimates put the NPL for public agencies in Marin at about $1 billion. This is confirmed by our research.

    The vast majority of employees of public agencies in Marin are covered by a pension plan. Three agencies administer these plans:


    The lack of a complete set of financial data for the fiscal years under investigation is reflected in this report in the following ways:


    The financial tables below include an asterisk (*) next to the name of agencies for which financial data is missing. Table cells with data which is Not Available are marked as N/A.


    Summary financial data totals do not include data for missing agencies for FY 2016. Percentages presented are calculated only with available data.


    One agency, the Central Marin Police Authority (CMPA), presents other complications. The predecessor agency of CMPA, the Twin Cities Police Authority (TCPA), was a Joint Powers Authority of the City of Larkspur and the Town of Corte Madera. Subsequent to the publication of the TCPA FY 2012 audit report, a new Joint Powers Authority was created consisting of the former TCPA members plus the Town of San Anselmo. Thus, a strict comparison of financial condition over the full five year term of this report is not possible. The FY 2012 audit report for TCPA is included in the CMPA statistics as the predecessor agency.

    DISCUSSION

    It’s Even Worse than You Thought

    The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) establishes accounting rules that public agencies must follow when presenting their financial results. The recent implementation of GASB Statement 68 requires public agencies to report NPL as a liability on the balance sheet in their audited financial statements beginning with the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015.6 Prior to this accounting rule change, agencies only reported required yearly contributions to pension plans on the income statement, but NPL was not reflected on the balance sheet. The new method of reporting has provided greater transparency into the future impact of pension promises on current agency financials.


    The addition of NPL as a liability on the balance sheet of government agencies has resulted in dramatic reductions to most agencies’ net positions. The net position (assets minus liabilities, which is referred to as net worth in the private sector) is one metric used to evaluate the financial health of an organization. In the private sector, when net worth is negative, a company is considered insolvent, which is a signal to the investment community of potential financial distress. During the course of our research, the Grand Jury discovered many agencies that now have negative net positions following the addition of NPL to their balance sheets. We will discuss the possible implications of this new reality in the section entitled The Thing That Ate My Budget.


    The calculation of the NPL involves complex actuarial modeling including many variables. Specific to each agency are the number of retirees, the number of employees, their compensation, their age and length of service, and expected retirement dates. Also included in the evaluation are general economic and demographic data such as prevailing interest rates, life expectancy and inflation. Actuaries base their assumptions on statistical models. But these assumptions can change over time as economic or demographic conditions change, which make regular updates to actuarial calculations essential. The total of all present and future obligations is calculated based on these assumptions. A discount rate is then applied to calculate the present

    value of the obligations and account for the time value of money.7 This calculation yields the

    Total Pension Liability (TPL). Put simply, the total pension liability is the total value of the pension benefits contractually due to employees by employers.


    Agencies are required to make annual contributions to the pension plan administrator. A portion of the yearly contributions is used to make payments to current retirees and a portion is invested into a diversified portfolio of stocks, bonds, real estate and other investments. The investments are accounted for at market value (i.e. the current market price rather than book value or acquisition price.) In the calculation of NPL, the value of this investment portfolio is referred to


    image

    6 GASB 68.” Governmental Accounting Standards Board

    7 See Appendix C

    as Market Value of Assets (MVA). Consequently the NPL = TPL - MVA. The net pension liability is simply the difference between how much an entity should be saving to cover its future pension obligations and how much it has actually saved.


    Although the NPL calculation depends on many variables, it is extremely sensitive to changes in the discount rate, the rate used to calculate the present value of future retiree obligations.8 The discount rate has an inverse relationship to the net pension liability (i.e. the higher the discount rate, the lower the NPL). GASB requires pension plan administrators to use a discount rate that

    reflects either the long-term expected returns on their investment portfolios or a tax-exempt municipal bond rate.9 It is common practice for government pension administrators to choose the higher discount rates associated with the expected return on their investment portfolios.

    Choosing the higher discount rate produces a lower NPL, which requires lower contributions from agencies today with the expectation that investment returns will provide the balance. While a portfolio mix that contains stocks and other alternative assets might produce a higher expected return, these portfolios are inherently more risky and will experience significantly more volatility, potentially leading to underfunding of the pension plans.


    Until recently, the three pension administrators (CalPERS, CalSTRS and MCERA) that manage the assets on behalf of all of Marin’s current employees and retirees used discount rates between 7.50% and 7.60%. Prolonged weak performance in financial markets has resulted in the long- term historical returns of pension funds falling below the discount rate. For example, CalPERS 20-year returns dropped to 7.00% following a few years of very poor investment performance, falling under the 7.50% discount rate.10 In response, CalPERS announced in December 2016 that it would cut its discount rate to 7.00% over the course of the next three years.11 CalSTRS will cut its rate first to 7.25% and then to 7.00% by 2018.12 In early 2015, MCERA cut its discount rate from 7.50% to 7.25%. As noted before, a lower discount rate results in a higher NPL. A higher NPL leads to increasing yearly contributions. So you see, it’s worse than you thought. But keep reading, because it may be even worse than that.


    Discount rates may yet be too high even at the new, lower 7.00-7.25% range.


    At this point, it is helpful to provide some historical context. The risk-free rate,13 typically the US 10-Year Treasury note, yielded 2.37% as this report is written. (Real-time rates are available on Bloomberg.com.14) US Treasury securities are considered risk free because the probability of


    image

    8 Measuring Pension Obligations.” American Academy of Actuaries Issue Brief. November 2013, pg 1

    9 “GASB 68.” Government Accounting Standards Board

    10 Gittelsohn, John. “CalPERS Earns 0.6% as Long-Term Returns Trail Fund’s Target.” Bloomberg.com. 18 July 2016.

    11 Pacheco, Brad and Davis, Wayne and White, Megan. “CalPERS to Lower Discount Rate to Seven Percent Over the Next Three Years.” CalPERS.ca.gov. 21 Dec. 2016.

    12 Myers, John. “California Teacher Pension Fund Lowers its Investment Predictions, Sending a Bigger Invoice to State Lawmakers.LA Times.com. 1 Feb. 2017.

    13 Risk Free Rate of Return.” Investopedia.com

    14 Treasury Yields.” Bloomberg.com

    default by the US government is considered to be zero. Investment returns in the range of 7.00%


The Governor’s proposal was for each of these three components to make up approximately equal parts of retirement income. (For those not eligible for Social Security, the pension would provide two-thirds and the defined contribution plan one-third.)


It may be helpful at this point to pause and define our terms. A traditional pension — like the plans covering public employees in Marin — is a defined benefit (DB) plan. Under a DB plan, the employee is eligible for a pension that pays a defined amount, typically a formula based on retirement age, years of service and average compensation. Because the benefit is defined, the contributions by employer and employee will be uncertain; they, along with the investment returns on the contributed assets, must be sufficient to fund the defined benefit.


Under a defined contribution (DC) plan, such as a 401(k), both employer and employee make an annual contribution. Typically, the employee chooses a portion of pre-tax salary that is contributed to the plan and the employer matches a percentage of the employee’s contribution. The funds are placed in an investment account and the employee chooses how the funds are invested (usually from a range of choices established by the employer). What is undefined is the value of the account at the time the employee retires as this depends upon the total of contributions and the rates of return over the life of the account. By law, 401(k) plans are “portable”; they permit the employee to move the account to an Individual Retirement Account (IRA) should he/she change employers.


The primary difference between DB and DC plans is who assumes the risk of lower investment returns and greater longevity. In a DB plan, it is the employer; in a DC plan, it is the employee. Furthermore, a DB plan poses some risk to the employee: If the employer does not make the required contributions, the pension administrator will be required to reduce pension benefits to the retirees of the employer. In November 2016, CalPERS announced that it would cut benefits for the first time in its history. Loyalton, California was declared in default by CalPERS after failing to make required contributions towards its pension plans. The CalPERS board voted to



image

32 Twelve Point Pension Reform Plan.” Governor of the State of California. 27 Oct. 2011.

reduce benefits to Loyalton retirees.33 More recently, in March of 2017, CalPERS voted again to cut benefits for retirees of the East San Gabriel Valley Human Services Agency when it began missing required payments in 2015.34


Over the past several decades, private industry in the US has moved decidedly toward DC and away from DB. In 1980, 83% of employees in private industry were eligible for a DB plan (either alone or in combination with a DC plan).35 By March 2016, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that among workers in private industry, 62% had access to a DC plan while only 18%

had access to a DB plan. This compares with workers in state and local government, where 85% had access to DB plans and 33% to DC plans (some workers are eligible for both).36


Eliminating the risk of an underfunded plan is the primary reason that private employers have been moving away from DB plans, but there are several others. In a traditional DB plan, the employer is responsible for managing the assets held in trust for future retirees. This leads to costs for both investment management and oversight of their fiduciary duties. In addition, as the economy has shifted from manufacturing toward service and high technology, new firms have sprung up that did not have unionized work forces or legacy DB plans and chose the simplicity

and lack of risk of DC. The shift from DB to DC may also reflect the preference of younger employees for the portability and transparency of DC.37


In public employment, which has fewer competitive pressures and a higher percentage of workers represented by unions, these same trends have not occurred, leaving more DB plans in place.


Under PEPRA, new employees hired after January 1, 2013 are still eligible for DB plans, but at a lower percentage of average compensation and a later retirement age (generally two years later). These important steps reduced the annual cost of employee pensions but still leave the employer with the administrative cost and fiduciary duty. While PEPRA prohibits retroactive increases, which prevents the state from making the same mistake it made in the late 1990’s, investment performance that is significantly below target could again produce a large unfunded liability.


It is argued by some38 that everyone would benefit from a more secure retirement; rather than taking DB plans away from public employees, they should be made available to all workers.



image

33 CalPERS Finds the City of Loyalton in Default for Non-Payment of Pension Obligation.” CalPERS.ca.gov 16 November, 2016.

34 Dang, Sheila “CalPERS Cuts Pension Benefits for East San Gabriel Valley Human Services.” Institutionalinvestor.com 16

March, 2017.

35 Pensions: 1980 vs. Today.” New York Times, 3 Sep. 2009

36 National Compensation Survey.” Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 2016

37 Barbara A. Butrica and Howard M. Iams and Karen E. Smith & Eric J. Toder. ”The Disappearing Defined Benefit Pension and Its Potential Impact on the Retirement Incomes of Baby Boomers.” Social Security Bulletin, Vol. 69, No. 3, 2009

38 Aaronson, Mel and March, Sandra and Romain, Mona. “Everyone Should Have a Defined- Benefit Pension.” New York Teacher. 17 Feb. 2011.

While this argument has some appeal, it ignores the fact that US commerce has adopted DC plans as the de facto standard. Further, as DB plans for public employees exhibit significant unfunded liabilities, it stands to reason that DB programs for private employees with comparable benefits would suffer the same financial difficulties.


It is easy to understand why taxpayers, who have to manage the risks of their own retirements using DC plans, would object to guaranteeing the retirement income of public employees with DB plans. In a February 2015 nationwide poll, 67% of respondents favored requiring new public employees to have DC instead of DB plans.39 A California poll in September 2015 put that number at 70%.40


As noted above, the changes to state retirement law under PEPRA did not make DC or hybrid plans an option for public employees. While existing DC plans were grandfathered by PEPRA, any agency proposing to offer a new DC or hybrid plan in place of an existing DB plan would face a series of hurdles:




Note: At the time this report was prepared information was available at the websites listed.


Reports issued by the Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code Section 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Civil Grand Jury. The California State Legislature has stated that it intends the provisions of Penal Code Section 929 prohibiting disclosure of witness identities to encourage full candor in testimony in Grand Jury investigations by protecting the privacy and confidentiality of those who participate in any Civil Grand Jury investigation.

GLOSSARY

401(k): A retirement savings plan sponsored by an employer. A 401(k) allows workers to save and invest a piece of their paycheck before taxes are deducted. Taxes aren’t paid until the amounts are withdrawn.45

Actuary: A professional specially trained in mathematics and statistics that gathers and analyzes data and estimate the probabilities of various risks, typically for insurance companies.46

California Bill SB 400: A California statute47 passed by the legislature and signed by then Governor Grey Davis in 1999 retroactively raising the pension benefits for public employees.

California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS): An agency in the California executive branch that serves more than 1.7 million members in its retirement system and administers benefits for nearly 1.4 million members and their families in its health program.48

California State Teachers’ Retirement System: A pension fund in California established in 1913 to manage the retirement benefits of public school educators.

Cost of Living Allowance (COLA): An annual increase in pension benefits granted to retirees, typically based upon the rate of inflation in a specific geographic area.

Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR): A report issued by a government entity that includes the entity’s audited financial statements for the fiscal year as well as other information about the entity. The report must meet accounting standards established by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB).”49 Audited financial reports may be referred to as “audit reports” or “financial statements” by various public agencies.

Defined Benefit (DB): A type of retirement plan in which an employer/sponsor promises a specified payments (or payments) on retirement that is predetermined by a formula based on factors including an employee's earnings history, tenure of service and age.50

Defined Contribution (DC): A type of retirement plan in which the employer, employee or both contribute on a regular basis into an account where the funds may be invested. At retirement, the employee receives a benefit whose size depends on the accumulated value of the funds in the retirement account.51

Discount Rate: The interest rate used in present value calculations.



image

45 What is a 401(k)?” WSJ.com. Accessed 25 March 2017.

46 Bodie, Zvi and Merton, Robert C. Finance. Upper Saddle River. Prentice-Hall Inc. 1998. Pg. 223

47 Senate Bill No. 400, California Law

48 CalPERS Story.” CalPERS. Accessed March 2017.

49 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR).” Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board.

50 Bodie, Zvi and Merton, Robert C. Finance. Upper Saddle River. Prentice-Hall Inc. 1998. Pg. 50.

51 Ibid.

Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB): “Established in 1973, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) is the independent, private-sector, not-for-profit organization based in Norwalk, Connecticut, that establishes financial accounting and reporting

standards for public and private companies and not-for-profit organizations that follow Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).”52

Fiduciary Duty: A legal obligation of one party to act in the best interest of another. Typically, a fiduciary is entrusted with the care of money or other asset for another person.53

Fiscal Year (FY): A term of one year, typically beginning on the 1st day of July extending through the last day of June.

Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB): “The independent organization that establishes and improves standards of accounting and financial reporting for U.S. state and local governments. Established in 1984 by agreement of the Financial Accounting Foundation (FAF) and ten national associations of state and local government officials, the GASB is recognized by

governments, the accounting industry, and the capital markets as the official source of generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) for state and local governments.”54

Hybrid Plan: A pension plan that contains both defined benefit and defined contribution options.

Independent Retirement Account (IRA): Retirement accounts that permit and encourage savings by individuals through the pre-tax investment of wages and salaries. Such investment accounts accumulate returns that are not taxed until withdrawals at a later date.

Market Value of Assets (MVA): The value of accumulated assets at the current value of individual assets as opposed to the original cost.

Marin County Employees Retirement Association (MCERA): A pension fund in Marin County, CA that manages the retirement assets and benefits of several municipalities and public agencies.

Net Pension Liability (NPL): The total pension obligation of an organization for its employees less the value of assets held to fund those benefits.

Normal Cost: The present value of future pension benefits earned during the current accounting period.


image

52 About the FASB, Financial Accounting Standards Board.

53 Fiduciary DutyBusinessdictionary.com.

54 FACTS about GASB.” Governmental Accounting Standards Board. 2012–2014.

Present Value (PV): The current worth of a future sum of money or stream of cash flows given a specified rate of return.55

Public Employees Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA): An act of State Legislature, which imposes certain limits on pension benefits for public employees hired after 2013.

Quantitative Easing: A monetary policy whereby a central bank, such as the Federal Reserve, creates money to fund the purchase of government securities - e.g. US Treasury Bonds - with the objective of stimulating the economy.

Risk-Free Rate: A discount rate considered to have no risk of default over time, typically a United States Treasury obligation backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.

Sensitivity Analysis: An analysis of the impact of different discount rates on unfunded liabilities. Typically, the discount rates used in the analysis are minus 1% and plus 1% of the stated discount rate of the liability.

Termination Fee: The fee levied by a pension fund against an agency for terminating the contract between the two parties. The fee amounts to the difference between the total liabilities calculated at the nominal discount rate versus the risk-free rate, typically a mix of 10-year and

  1. year US Treasury bonds. The rationale for the fee is that as no additional contributions will be forthcoming from the agency to fund existing liabilities, a basket of securities without risk is required to prevent reductions of benefits.

    Time value of money: The core principal of finance holds that money in hand today is worth more than the expectation of the same amount to be received in the future. First, money may be invested and earn interest, resulting in a larger amount in the future. Second, the purchasing

    power of money may decline over time due to inflation. Third, the receipt of money expected in the future is uncertain.56

    Total Pension Liability: The total obligation of an agency to fund pension benefits for active and retired employees.

    Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (UAAL): The excess of the Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL) over the actuarial value of assets.57



    image

    55 Bodie, Zvi and Merton, Robert C. Finance. Upper Saddle River. Prentice-Hall Inc. 1998. Pg. 89.

    56 Bodie, Zvi and Merton, Robert C. Finance. Upper Saddle River. Prentice-Hall Inc. 1998. Pg. 82.

    57 Other Postemployment Benefits: A Plain-Language Summary of GASB Statements No. 43 and No. 45.” Governmental Accounting Standards Board.

    Appendix A: Public Sector Agencies

    The table below contains the list of public agencies, school districts and municipalities investigated in this report, the corresponding pension fund(s) for each and the source of audited financial statements used in this report.


    For each agency, the five fiscal years from 2012 through 2016 were examined. All agencies reviewed in this report use the calendar dates of July 1 through June 30 for the fiscal year. (Note: San Rafael City Schools is a single district, but it produces separate financial statements for the elementary schools and the high schools. This report presents them separately.)


    Municipality

    Pension Funds

    Audit Reports

    County of Marin

    MCERA

    Comprehensive Annual Financial Report www.marincounty.org

    City of Belvedere

    CalPERS

    Audited Financial Report www.ci.belb

    City of Larkspur*

    CalPERS

    Audited Financial Report www.ci.larkspur.ca.us

    City of Mill Valley

    CalPERS

    Audited Financial Report www.cityofmillvalley.org

    City of Novato

    CalPERS

    Comprehensive Annual Financial Report www.novato.org

    City of San Rafael

    MCERA

    Comprehensive Annual Financial Report www.cityofsanrafael.org

    City of Sausalito

    CalPERS

    Comprehensive Annual Financial Report www.ci.sausalito.ca.us

    Town of Corte Madera

    CalPERS

    Comprehensive Annual Financial Report www.ci.corte-madera.ca.us

    Town of Fairfax*

    CalPERS

    Basic Financial Statements and Independent Auditor’s Report www.town-of-fairfax.org

    Town of Ross

    CalPERS

    Financial Report www.townofross.org

    Town of San Anselmo

    CalPERS

    Annual Financial Report www.townofsananselmo.org

    Town of Tiburon

    CalPERS

    Annual Financial Report www.townoftiburon.org

    Appendix A: Public Sector Agencies (cont’d)


    School District

    Pension Funds

    Audit Reports

    Bolinas-Stinson Union School District

    CalSTRS CalPERS

    Audit Report July 1, 2012 - June 30, 2016 www.bolinas-stinson.org

    College of Marin

    CalSTRS CalPERS

    Financial Statements www.marin.edu

    Dixie Elementary School District

    CalSTRS CalPERS

    Audit Report www.dixieschool.com

    Kentfield School District

    CalSTRS CalPERS

    Audit Report http://www.kentfieldschools.org/pages/Kentfield_School_District

    Larkspur-Corte Madera School District

    CalSTRS CalPERS

    Audit Report www.lcmschools.org

    Marin County Office of Education

    CalSTRS CalPERS

    Audit Report www.marinschools.org

    Mill Valley School District

    CalSTRS CalPERS

    Audit Report www.mvschools.org

    Novato Unified School District

    CalSTRS CalPERS

    Audit Report www.nusd.org

    Reed Union School District

    CalSTRS CalPERS

    Audit Report www.reedschools.org

    Ross School District

    CalSTRS CalPERS

    Audit Report www.rossbears.org

    Ross Valley School District

    CalSTRS CalPERS

    Audit Report www.rossvalleyschools.org

    San Rafael City Schools - Elementary

    CalSTRS CalPERS

    Audit Report www.srcs.org

    San Rafael City Schools - High School

    CalSTRS CalPERS

    Audit Report www.srcs.org

    Sausalito Marin City School District

    CalSTRS CalPERS

    Audit Report www.smcsd.org

    Shoreline Unified School District

    CalSTRS CalPERS

    Annual Financial www.shorelineunified.org

    Tamalpais Union High School District

    CalSTRS CalPERS

    Audit Report www.tamdistrict.org

    Safety District

    Pension Funds

    Audit Reports

    Central Marin Police Authority*


    CalPERS

    Twin Cities Police Authority (FY 2012)

    Financial Statements and Independent Auditor’s Report http://centralmarinpolice.org

    Kentfield Fire Protection District

    CalPERS

    Basic Financial Statements www.kentfieldfire.org

    Novato Fire Protection District

    CalPERS

    Independent Auditor’s Report www.novato.org

    Ross Valley Fire Department

    CalPERS

    Basic Financial Statements www.rossvalleyfire.org

    Southern Marin Fire Protection District

    MCERA

    Basic Financial Statements southernmarinfire.org

    Tiburon Fire Protection District

    CalPERS

    Comprehensive Financial Report www.tiburonfire.org


    Utility District

    Pension Funds

    Audit Reports

    Central Marin Sanitation Agency

    CalPERS

    Financial Statements and Independent Auditor’s Report www.cmsa.us

    Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District

    CalPERS

    Comprehensive Annual Financial Report www.lgvsd.org

    Marin Municipal Water District

    CalPERS

    Comprehensive Annual Financial Report www.marinwater.org

    Marin/Sonoma Mosquito & Vector Control District

    MCERA

    Basic Financial Statements www.msmosquito.com

    Marinwood Community Services District

    CalPERS

    Basic Financial Statements www.marinwood.org

    North Marin Water District

    MCERA

    Comprehensive Annual Financial Report www.nmwd.com

    Novato Sanitary District

    CalPERS

    Comprehensive Annual Financial Report www.novatosan.com

    Richardson Bay Sanitary District

    CalPERS

    Financial Statements www.richardsonbaysd.org

    Ross Valley Sanitary District

    CalPERS

    Basic Financial Statements www.rvsd.org

    Sanitary District # 5 Tiburon- Belvedere

    CalPERS

    Financial Statements www.sani5.org

    Sausalito Marin City Sanitation District

    CalPERS

    Financial Statements and Independent Auditor’s Report www.sausalitomarincitysanitarydistrict.com

    Tamalpais Community Services District

    CalPERS

    Financial Statements and Independent Auditor’s Report www.tcsd.us

    Appendix B: Methodology Detail export errors - SEE THE ORIGINAL .pdf Document


    The Grand Jury collected data from the sources described above: over 200 audited financial reports alone published by the entities (see Appendix A). Multiple jurors participated in the collection and review of all financial data items according to the process and methods described above.


    The collected data were entered into spreadsheets to allow the Grand Jury to analyze relevant financial statistics. In order to assure a consistent interpretation of the financial data from these audited reports, and to ensure the correct transcription of the data to spreadsheets used for the analysis, multiple jurors participated in validation of each data item. In those cases where data was provided in separate portions of the report (i.e. a school district’s CalPERS and CalSTRS pensions reported separately), the Grand Jury performed the appropriate summations to aid in our analysis.

    In examining the audited financial reports of the public entities, the Grand Jury captured basic financial data from multiple fiscal years to determine the relative health of the entities with regard to pensions. Audited reports tend to have a similar structure, containing the following four major sections:


𝑃𝑉 =  𝐹𝑉 *  ( 1/ (1 + 𝑖)𝑛 )


Where:


FV = Future value

 i = interest rate

n = number of years


Example: How much should an investor put into a savings account today, with a 5% expected return, in order to receive $100 in a year?

𝑃𝑉 = 100 * ( 1 / (1 + .05)1 )

𝑃𝑉 = 95.24


Answer: $95.24


Expanding on this principle, the calculation of an annuity, which spans multiple years, follows:


image

𝑃𝑉𝐴 = 𝑅 !

(!!!)!

+ 𝑅 !

image

(!!!)!

+ 𝑅 !

image

(!!!)!

….+𝑅 !

image

(!!!)!


image

58 Brueggeman, William B. and Fisher, Jeffrey D. (2005) Real Estate Finance and Investments. New York, NY McGraw Hill.

Alternatively:

𝑃𝑉𝐴 = 𝑅

image

!!!1

image

(1 + 𝑖)𝑡


Where:


PVA = Present value of an annuity R = payment

i = interest rate

n = number of years


Example: How much would an investor need to set aside today in order to receive $100 a year for five years if the interest rate was 5%?

image

𝑃𝑉𝐴 = 100 !

(!!.!")!


Answer: $432.95

+ 100 !

image

(!!.!")!

+ 100 !

image

(!!.!")!

+100 !

image

(!!.!")!

+100 !

image

(!!.!")!


Example: If the interest rate was 10%? Answer: $379.08

This simple example illustrates how a higher discount rate results in a much lower required initial investment to meet a particular future need.

Appendix D: GASB Primer export errors - SEE THE ORIGINAL .pdf Document

The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB), founded in 1984, is an independent, nonprofit, non-governmental regulatory body charged with setting accounting and financial reporting standards for state and local governments. Prior to its founding, accounting standards for all types of enterprises were set by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB).


In November 1994, GASB issued Statement 27, which established standards for accounting and financial reporting of pension benefits. Some of the key parts of GASB 27 were:


GASB 68 was effective for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2014, which means that FY 2014-2015 was the first year for which it was reflected in the financial statements of the agencies that are the subject of this report.


image

60 “GASB Approves New Pension Accounting Standards.”, Bartel Associates, LLC, August 5, 2012

Appendix E: Public Agency Balance Sheet Data

FY 2016

Municipalities

Assets

Cash

Net Position

NPL

NPL -1%

NPL +1%

NPL%

of Assets

NPL % of Cash

City of Belvedere

$10,054,000

$3,595,630

$5,678,000

$3,080,855

$5,057,618

$1,451,306

30.6%

85.7%

City of Larkspur*

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

City of Mill Valley

$61,952,000

$17,919,732

$4,017,000

$25,010,100

$42,044,314

$10,993,085

40.4%

139.6%

City of Novato

$375,695,895

$59,936,536

$291,122,782

$32,111,535

$54,651,732

$13,464,873

8.5%

53.6%

City of San Rafael

$300,378,000

$66,009,979

$141,542,000

$142,323,127

$263,741,368

$42,614,784

47.4%

215.6%

City of Sausalito

$93,777,974

$28,955,501

$27,987,699

$19,635,621

$31,512,817

$9,872,158

20.9%

67.8%

County of Marin

$1,992,947,827

$408,896,116

$1,390,055,902

$203,688,484

$377,458,682

$60,988,969

10.2%

49.8%

Town of Corte Madera

$78,944,247

$15,323,517

$47,275,642

$14,263,877

$22,204,244

$7,732,353

18.1%

93.1%

Town of Fairfax*

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Town of Ross

$19,557,803

$10,528,331

$13,434,401

$3,548,143

$5,793,448

$1,701,623

18.1%

33.7%

Town of San Anselmo

$29,217,215

$6,606,250

$10,925,168

$5,299,442

$8,601,144

$2,573,504

18.1%

80.2%

Town of Tiburon

$63,662,493

$21,441,460

$52,944,160

$5,412,997

$10,066,334

$2,805,016

8.5%

25.2%

Totals

$3,026,187,454

$639,213,052

$1,984,982,754

$454,374,181

$821,131,701

$154,197,671

15.0%

71.1%


School Districts

Assets

Cash

Net Position

NPL

NPL -1%

NPL +1%

NPL%

of Assets

NPL % of Cash

Bolinas-Stinson Union School District


$4,810,121


$2,828,769


$1,406,313


$3,039,017


$4,710,035


$1,649,952


63.2%


107.4%

Dixie Elementary School District


$32,522,470


$18,194,342


-$11,279,305


$18,296,623


$28,111,026


$10,138,805


56.3%


100.6%

Kentfield School District


$36,650,017


$16,899,110


-$6,602,777


$13,427,307


$20,538,517


$7,516,633


36.6%


79.5%

Larkspur-Corte Madera School District


$63,370,037


$6,262,719


-$20,314,913


$15,695,360


$24,040,435


$8,759,042


24.8%


250.6%

Marin Community College District


$297,031,000


$17,857,000


-$5,569,000


$45,723,000


$74,506,000


$24,466,000


15.4%


256.1%

Marin County Office of Education


$71,319,233


$44,767,583


$39,274,235


$21,263,747


$33,325,302


$11,236,462


29.8%


47.5%

Mill Valley School District


$90,032,772


$21,001,383


-$22,426,359


$33,102,435


$50,864,259


$18,356,989


36.8%


157.6%

Novato Unified School District


$144,877,763


$29,605,956


-$7,019,803


$60,585,951


$93,087,454


$33,570,412


41.8%


204.6%

Reed Union School District


$52,162,124


$10,224,426


-$650,150


$17,787,987


$27,309,547


$9,873,631


34.1%


174.0%

Ross School District

$35,969,694

$4,473,827

$7,390,298

$5,578,419

$8,558,914

$3,101,035

15.5%

124.7%

Ross Valley School District


$64,424,216


$18,159,492


-$13,237,323


$20,577,136


$31,530,697


$11,472,647


31.9%


113.3%

San Rafael City Schools - Elementary


$123,144,010


$50,000,124


-$15,195,483


$33,037,132


$50,443,688


$28,569,426


26.8%


66.1%

San Rafael City Schools - High School


$109,218,754


$54,037,304


-$17,227,292


$28,004,648


$43,124,257


$15,436,855


25.6%


51.8%

Sausalito Marin City School District


$27,255,480


$4,092,629


$2,360,366


$3,502,310


$5,426,137


$1,903,098


12.8%


85.6%

Shoreline Unified School District


$22,411,328


$7,043,760


-$2,374,726


$10,009,533


$15,448,543


$5,488,410


44.7%


142.1%

Tamalpais Union High School District


$203,339,657


$42,522,717


$7,712,183


$57,699,928


$88,683,304


$31,946,196


28.4%


135.7%

Totals

$1,378,538,676

$347,971,141

-$63,753,736

$387,330,533

$599,708,115

$223,485,593

28.1%

111.3%

Special Districts Safety

Assets

Cash

Net Position

NPL

NPL -1%

NPL +1%

NPL %

of Assets

NPL %

of Cash

Central Marin Police Authority*


N/A


N/A


N/A


N/A


N/A


N/A


N/A


N/A

Kentfield Fire Protection District


$9,789,704


$3,507,855


$2,947,286


$4,310,797


$7,233,383


$1,913,867


44.0%


122.9%

Novato Fire Protection District


$35,403,303


$15,930,859


$10,305,465


$17,430,800


$32,301,320


$5,219,178


49.2%


109.4%

Ross Valley Fire Department


$3,008,924


$1,338,192


-$6,955,625


$7,800,931


$13,770,507


$2,905,473


259.3%


582.9%

Southern Marin Fire Protection District


$13,349,870


$9,102,154


$7,896,367


$6,033,143


$11,180,122


$1,806,460


45.2%


66.3%

Tiburon Fire Protection District


$11,652,619


$5,564,687


$5,444,495


$5,232,050


$10,007,964


$1,314,991


44.9%


94.0%

Total

$73,204,420

$35,443,747

$19,637,988

$40,807,721

$74,493,296

$13,159,969

55.7%

115.1%



Special Districts Utility


Assets


Cash


Net Position


NPL


NPL -1%


NPL +1%


NPL %

of Assets


NPL %

of Cash

Central Marin Sanitation Agency


$106,391,299


$14,974,538


$45,625,458


$6,643,602


$11,141,784


$2,929,830


6.2%


14.6%

Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District


$81,480,447


$20,316,117


$63,883,215


$2,098,373


$3,571,571


$882,077


2.6%


10.3%

Marin Municipal Water District


$460,030,200


$16,947,252


$243,058,604


$69,753,895


$96,972,537


$47,010,300


15.2%


411.6%

Marin/Sonoma Mosquito & Vector Control District


$19,472,738


$11,634,371


$8,780,059


$4,135,340


$7,663,272


$1,238,215


21.2%


35.5%

Marinwood Community Services District


$6,784,666


$2,387,836


-$470,389


$3,322,116


$5,238,798


$1,624,470


49.0%


139.1%

North Marin Water District


$136,897,391


$5,411,426


$92,672,784


$8,619,837


$14,579,649


$3,833,847


6.3%


159.3%

Novato Sanitary District


$201,851,460


$19,742,079


$108,547,505


$3,528,249


$6,180,933


$1,338,148


1.7%


17.9%

Richardson Bay Sanitary District


$17,826,465


$1,595,379


$16,376,465


$1,101,797


$1,847,790


$485,893


6.2%


69.1%

Ross Valley Sanitary District


$122,064,345


$18,937,993


$66,824,699


$4,506,476


$7,557,675


$1,987,357


3.7%


23.8%

Sanitary District # 5 Tiburon-Belvedere


$30,527,780


$5,434,555


$20,083,181


$1,786,666


$2,996,362


$787,920


5.9%


32.9%

Sausalito Marin City Sanitary District


$46,001,842


$11,215,025


$39,986,927


$1,863,054


$3,124,472


$821,607


4.0%


16.6%

Tamalpais Community Services District


$8,062,948


$1,575,641


$1,239,870


$1,756,793


$3,255,545


$526,054


21.8%


111.5%

Total

$1,237,391,581

$130,172,212

$706,608,378

$109,116,198

$164,130,388

$63,465,718

8.8%

83.8%

FY 2015

Municipalities

Assets

Cash

Net Position

NPL

NPL -1%

NPL +1%

NPL %

of Assets

NPL%

of Cash

City of Belvedere

$9,635,000

$2,981,537

$5,341,000

$2,821,673

$5,039,427

$986,027

29.3%

94.6%

City of Larkspur*

$45,030,851

$14,151,668

$24,277,367

$9,046,789

$15,797,243

$3,467,207

20.1%

63.9%

City of Mill Valley

$61,653,195

$20,419,625

$2,336,678

$21,174,403

$37,076,950

$8,022,272

34.3%

103.7%

City of Novato

$372,235,251

$60,646,987

$284,150,160

$29,915,448

$51,486,548

$11,986,247

8.0%

49.3%

City of San Rafael

$290,551,982

$65,829,733

$151,480,204

$74,253,787

$159,506,132

$3,692,492

25.6%

112.8%

City of Sausalito

$65,193,649

$11,696,520

$17,106,631

$17,741,671

$29,127,780

$8,335,668

27.2%

151.7%

County of Marin

$1,947,970,000

$367,440,909

$1,342,737,000

$142,013,491

$304,297,935

$7,062,046

7.3%

38.6%

Town of Corte Madera

$74,019,098

$9,073,608

$42,936,160

$12,146,336

$19,631,470

$5,958,264

16.4%

133.9%

Town of Fairfax*

$11,962,960

$2,463,991

-$1,376,349

$6,078,042

$9,422,128

$3,314,672

50.8%

246.7%

Town of Ross

$18,236,166

$10,234,934

$11,490,464

$3,465,264

$5,999,505

$1,374,389

19.0%

33.9%

Town of San Anselmo

$28,956,896

$5,822,276

$11,059,337

$4,002,434

$7,131,100

$1,405,939

13.8%

68.7%

Town of Tiburon

$62,234,833

$21,280,864

$52,632,219

$5,232,395

$9,162,200

$1,982,334

8.4%

24.6%

Totals

$2,987,679,881

$592,042,652

$1,944,170,871

$327,891,733

$653,678,418

$57,587,557

11.0%

55.4%


School Districts

Assets

Cash

Net Position

NPL

NPL -1%

NPL +1%

NPL %

of Assets

NPL%

of Cash

Bolinas-Stinson Union School District


$4,866,633


$2,865,817


$1,587,636


$2,499,021


$4,063,986


$1,192,965


51.4%


87.2%

Dixie Elementary School District


$32,345,802


$20,512,452


-$12,361,898


$14,791,102


$23,752,949


$7,405,888


45.7%


72.1%

Kentfield School District


$36,671,347


$16,481,560


-$7,350,022


$11,241,124


$17,845,987


$5,731,639


30.7%


68.2%

Larkspur-Corte Madera School District


$67,710,441


$20,180,460


-$18,662,067


$13,339,460


$21,229,928


$6,757,236


19.7%


66.1%

Marin Community College District


$296,646,697


$16,563,890


-$1,453,534


$35,165,000


$57,576,000


$16,323,000


11.9%


212.3%

Marin County Office of Education


$65,200,872


$40,080,879


$35,148,165


$18,141,000


$29,793,000


$8,340,000


27.8%


45.3%

Mill Valley School District


$88,076,729


$17,389,526


-$25,517,249


$26,623,202


$42,487,967


$13,316,095


30.2%


153.1%

Novato Unified School District


$147,677,796


$30,810,042


-$9,238,177


$51,786,928


$82,735,169


$25,967,877


35.1%


168.1%

Reed Union School District


$52,705,559


$9,360,996


-$1,378,282


$13,830,041


$22,131,664


$6,904,029


26.2%


147.7%

Ross School District

$36,049,201

$3,875,832

$7,486,041

$4,733,569

$7,568,886

$2,368,118

13.1%

122.1%

Ross Valley School District


$58,186,120


$12,864,248


-$12,811,202


$16,841,437


$26,841,518


$8,499,130


28.9%


130.9%

San Rafael City Schools - Elementary


$90,671,410


$18,526,824


-$21,324,673


$26,576,187


$42,069,163


$13,668,565


29.3%


143.4%

San Rafael City Schools - High School


$57,092,257


$17,649,236


-$32,610,889


$21,868,291


$35,163,300


$10,775,267


38.3%


123.9%

Sausalito Marin City School District


$27,343,812


$3,879,729


$2,795,062


$2,990,897


$4,824,034


$1,461,280


10.9%


77.1%

Shoreline Unified School District


$22,894,320


$6,451,291


-$2,544,996


$8,800,020


$14,190,098


$4,302,465


38.4%


136.4%

Tamalpais Union High School District


$207,432,180


$44,567,689


$3,702,851


$46,266,492


$74,079,210


$23,062,248


22.3%


103.8%

Totals

$1,291,571,176

$282,060,471

-$94,533,234

$315,493,771

$506,352,859

$156,075,802

24.4%

111.9%

Special Districts Safety

Assets

Cash

Net Position

NPL

NPL -1%

NPL +1%

NPL %

of Assets

NPL %

of Cash

Central Marin Police Authority*


$16,470,963


$178,725


-$1,124,490


$11,532,085


$18,375,103


$5,889,395


70.0%


6452.4%

Kentfield Fire Protection District


$9,630,272


$3,261,202


$1,651,848


$5,202,429


$8,026,436


$2,875,079


54.0%


159.5%

Novato Fire Protection District


$37,252,657


$17,461,022


$3,778,037


$15,014,710


$32,172,613


$746,651


40.3%


86.0%

Ross Valley Fire Department


$2,499,767


$912,212


-$8,316,114


$7,679,794


$13,318,349


$3,033,390


307.2%


841.9%

Southern Marin Fire Protection District


$12,413,494


$7,865,476


$5,848,381


$3,845,243


$8,239,354


$191,216


31.0%


48.9%

Tiburon Fire Protection District


$11,338,453


$5,938,906


$4,874,704


$6,315,892


$10,889,109


$2,546,208


55.7%


106.3%

Total

$89,605,606

$35,617,543

$6,712,366

$49,590,153

$91,020,964

$15,281,939

55.3%

139.2%


Special Districts Utility

Assets

Cash

Net Position