2011-11-07_Supplemental Agenda Packet--Dossier de l'ordre du jour supplémentaireCity of Saint John
Common Council Meeting
Monday, November 7, 2011
Location: Common Council Chamber
Supplemental to Agenda
12.2 City Manager: Revised Pension Plan Reform Proposal (Updated)
City of Saint John
Seance du conseil communal
le lundi 7 novembre 2011
Lieu: Salle du conseil communal
Ordre du jour supplementaire
12.2 Directeur general: Proposition de reforme du regime de retraite (mise a jour)
City Manager's Office P.O. Box /C.P. 1971
Bureau du directeur general Saint John, NB /N. -B.
:ax
www.saintjohn.ca Canada E2L 4L1
November 4, 2011 _D ev
The City of Saint John
His Worship Mayor Ivan Court and
Members of Common Council
Your Worship and Councillors,
Re; Revised Pension Plan Reform Proposal
Background
The financial position of the City of Saint John Pension Plan has deteriorated considerably since the
market decline in 2008. Liabilities for future pension obligations continue to grow with each year of
service while market returns on investments have not met the targeted amounts. The plan now has a
$131M going concern deficit and given the current market downturn it is unlikely that the plan will meet
the needed 2011 investment returns.
A concerted effort has been made during the last 18 months to find an effective resolve to the funding
deficit. The City has consulted with the pension plan actuary, the municipal employee groups and the
provincial regulator to identify a balanced and sustainable solution.
The City submitted a reform proposal to the province in early 2011. A detailed analytical review
revealed that while the proposal improved the affordability of the plan there remained an unacceptable
level of risk that the plan would fail in future years. This analysis necessitated revisions to the original
proposal with a more aggressive reduction in benefits and the use of more conservative long -term
assumptions.
A range of scenarios with different combinations of changes were developed and assessed. Staff
worked with the Provincial regulator to ensure that the selected approach would meet their
requirements.
The purpose of this report is to recommend a revised reform proposal for submission to the Province.
Stakeholders
Employees have a very real and personal interest in any proposed changes to the plan. Pension benefits
represent the largest single asset for most employees other than their home. There is therefore a real
reluctance to introduce any change that may negatively impact these benefits. In addition to the
1
employees there are also a significant number of other stakeholders that have an interest in any
potential changes including —The City as Plan sponsor, the Superintendent of Pensions as plan regulator,
the Province of New Brunswick as legislator, Retirees as plan beneficiaries, the Pension Board as
administrator /trustee on behalf of the beneficiaries, and the taxpayer as the sponsor's main revenue
source.
Context
The pension funding shortfall is not unique to the City of Saint John. Several other cities in the Province
are in a deficit position as are certain provincial employee plans. Likewise the same situation prevails
across the country as plan sponsors struggle to determine how to fund promised benefits in a period of
economic decline and low interest rates. The ability to provide sufficient income during retirement for
the coming retirement wave is a matter that raises significant public policy considerations that goes well
beyond the scope of this report.
These policy considerations could however influence the legislative environment for pension plans in
future years. There is already active discussion at both the Federal and Provincial levels of government
about the need for pension reform and any future legislative changes could have a direct bearing on the
City of Saint John Pension Plan.
Plan Structure
Defined Benefit Plans are structured such that an employer promises a specific benefit usually earned
for each year of service to be paid to the employee at retirement. In general both the employer and
employee contribute a percentage of earnings during the employee's working career to help fund this
promised benefit. Investment returns during the life of the plan are intended to generate the largest
portion of plan assets used to fund the promised benefits.
The employer takes the responsibility and risk to ensure that there will be sufficient funds available to
meet the defined pension obligation. The Pension Benefits Act in the province also reinforces this
promise by setting out various provisions to protect these earned /promised benefits and to ensure that
sufficient assets are available to fulfill this promise. The City of Saint John pension plan is a defined
benefit plan.
What is the current funding position of the pension plan? (Schedule Ay
As of December 31, 2010 the City of Saint John Pension Plan has a going concern deficit of $131,356,000
and a solvency deficit of $218,007,000. The plan had $372M in assets and going concern accrued
liabilities of $503M. Approximately $216M of the liabilities relates to active employees contributing to
the plan and $287M arises from benefits owing to retirees. The plan is considered a mature plan in that
the number of retirees is roughly equal to the number of active employees.
2
How did this going concern deficit arise?
The plan was in a surplus position in 2000 ($24.3M). A deficit of $43.5M was reported in 2003. In 2006
the plan reported a smaller deficit of $31.OM. In 2009 the actuarial valuation identified a going concern
deficit of $129M. The report shows that approximately $92M of this amount arose because of lower
than anticipated returns in the plan mainly because of the market downturn in 2008. In addition, other
factors such as changes in actuarial assumptions offset by some experience gains contributed to the
overall deficit.
What is the financial impact of this shortfall on the City? What are the long -term risks? (Schedule B)
Without any reforms, the City would have to contribute approximately $6.75M annually for current
service costs, $13.6M annually for the deficit for a total of $20.3M annually.
This would mean an increase in annual funding from the current budget of $13.OM to $20.3M in 2012.
This additional annual funding would be equivalent to 12.2 cents on the tax rate. I, simple terms, the
tax rate would have to increase from $1.785 to $1.907.
The negative implications of a $1.91 municipal tax rate in the province cannot be understated. It would
discourage new housing, commercial and industrial growth in the City and cast a decidedly negative
impression of the City. If the local economy suffers, so will Provincial coffers.
The alternative is a major reduction in services ($7.3M) in order to maintain the tax rate. Taxpayers will
react negatively to vastly reduced services in order to fund increased contributions to the employee
pension plan particularly when this is avoidable with joint action by the City, employees and Province.
Because of the nature of Defined Benefit plans, City would also continue to be exposed to cover the cost
of any additional funding shortfall if the plan does not meet its targeted annual return on investment.
What options are available to address the going concern deficit?
In practical terms the options are relatively straight forward, the City can increase its payments to the
plan to cover the going concern deficit by increasing the tax rate, reduce services to offset the increased
cost and maintain the tax rate, adjust the benefit provisions in the plan to reduce the overall cost to a
more affordable and sustainable level or exercise some combination of the three options.
What legal considerations must come into play?
Pension plans in NB are governed by the provisions of the Pensions Benefit Act and related regulations.
Any change to the City plan must comply with these requirements. Paramount in the Pension Benefits
Act provisions is the protection of accrued benefits and the obligation to dispense with any funding
shortfall in a plan. A change in benefits can affect beneficiaries on a go- forward basis, on a retro- active
basis or both. There are strict limitations on what if any changes can be made on a retro- active basis.
3
A change to the Pension Benefits Act is required in order to suspend earned benefits. An adverse
change to benefits requires that plan members be notified in advance and that they be given an
opportunity to voice their support or objections to the proposed changes.
In addition, the City of Saint John Pension Act is a private act and any change in the benefit provisions of
the plan must be submitted to the Private Members Committee for consideration. There is a hearing
process and both the proponents and opponents of the proposed amendments are given an opportunity
to present their position.
Finally, the plan is also registered with the Canada Revenue Agency for income tax purposes and the
plan provisions cannot conflict with the registration requirements.
What other considerations must come into play in any proposed solution?
Beyond the legal requirements, the plan must be affordable for both the plan sponsor and the plan
contributors and just as importantly the plan must be financially sustainable over the long -term.
Pension benefits in defined benefit plans are in effect a long -term promise to pay. Critical assumptions
must be made today about future interest rates, the best asset mix, projected rates of return, mortality
of plan members, retirement dates, length of service etc. Each of these assumptions has a direct impact
on determining not only the funding position of the plan but more practically how much money must be
put in the plan today in order to meet the pension promise of tomorrow. These assumptions are
determined by the Board of Trustees based on the advice of their professional investment managers and
the plan's actuary. The assumptions are also subject to approval of the Superintendent of Pensions.
The more conservative the assumptions (lower rates of return, longer life span etc.) the greater the
current level of funding required to meet the future obligations.
What is meant by sustainability? How is it determined? Why is it relevant to the City plan?
From the financial perspective, sustainability means there will be enough funding available over the life
of the plan to pay all of the promised benefits. The challenge is that the future is uncertain. A statistical
method called Stochastic Testing is used to develop over a thousand scenarios based on different
combinations of assumptions over an extended period of time. From this statistical method risk factors
are determined about the likelihood (probability) of the plan attaining certain levels of funding sufficient
to meet its obligations.
During the review of the original reform proposal it was determined that there remained an
unacceptable risk of plan ruin even with the planned changes. This led to the conclusion that even
more aggressive action was required in order to put the plan on a sustainable financial footing. The
revised proposal (S7) has been assessed and meets the sustainability requirement.
4
Have the employee groups and retirees been involved in the reform discussions?
From the outset the City invited representatives from the various employee groups and retirees to
participate in the reform process. All information was made available to the representatives and a
broad range of ideas and suggestions were developed and evaluated during the course of the reform
process. The current proposal is a refinement of a scenario presented to employees within the last
month.
The interests of the various parties do not readily align and achieving a common consensus on a
comprehensive approach as to how to best address the funding issue(s) has not been achieved. The
responsibility therefore rests with the plan sponsor to take definitive action.
Is support of the employees /retirees necessary in order to proceed? What is their position?
There is no legal requirement for employees /retirees to support the proposed reforms. In fact, pension
benefits are not matters covered by the various collective agreements.
The plan is however governed by an Act of the legislature and it would be easier to secure the needed
changes if there is support from those most affected. Opposition to proposed changes can result in
delays or a lack of action.
From the outset, the City decided it did not want to act in an arbitrary or heavy handed fashion given
the importance of retirement benefits to its plan members. The various employee groups and retiree
representatives have been ongoing participants in the reform process. While they have expressed a
willingness to support the original proposal (Option A) they have expressed opposition to further
reductions in benefits in particular the suspension of accrued indexing and the elimination of overtime
from pension calculations. In both cases it must be noted that the plan changes are not intended to
penalize the plan members but are intended to protect the core plan benefits over the long -term and
ensure that the plan is indeed sustainable and affordable overtime.
The reality is that the proposed reforms are a deliberate attempt to ensure that the promised pensions
are in fact available in the future and absent these needed changes there is a real risk that not only will
there be no indexing but the very pensions themselves will have to be substantially reduced.
What if the employee groups and /or retirees object to the proposal?
While employees and retirees were prepared to accept the suspension of indexing on a prospective
basis as set out in Option A, the loss of accrued indexing represents a significant financial impact to
these individuals and runs contrary to the current legislative provisions that protect accrued benefits.
The reality is that the plan cannot afford to provide indexed pensions. The plan is in a very weak
financial position and should the plan fail then the actual pensions could have to be reduced
substantially. By suspending all accrued indexing until such time as the plan is in a position to afford this
benefit, the pensions of both active members and retirees are being protected.
5
As noted previously, affected employees and retirees will be given an opportunity to voice their
concerns during the legislative amendment process. The Provincial government will then have to weigh
the concerns of these individuals against the real need to address the funding deficit in the plan and the
overall impact on the taxpayers and the community if plan changes are not implemented.
What happens if there is a delay in obtaining the needed legislative changes?
There will be no adverse financial impact if the needed legislative changes are delayed but are made
effective January 1, 2012. If however, the effective date of the changes is delayed then the costs will
continue to rise monthly. If the changes are not implemented then the increased annual contributions
of $73M will come due. This will in turn create a large operating deficit and necessitate either a
substantial tax rate hike or a consequent reduction in services.
What approach is being recommended? (Option S7 - Schedule C)
The key elements of the revised proposal included;
• A reduction in the projected rate of return in the fund from 6.5% to 6.0% to reduce volatility
• Adoption of a de- risking strategy to rebalance the asset mix in line with the mature nature of
the plan
• Adoption of a comprehensive funding and benefits policy to determine the distribution of future
surpluses, when benefits are reinstated etc.
• Revision of the mortality assumption to reflect national standards (more conservative)
• Base salary averaging period increased from 3 years to 5 years for all employees on a
prospective basis
• Accrued post- retirement indexing suspended for all active employees until plan is funded 110%
• Indexing on future service eliminated until the plan can afford to reinstate (ad -hoc basis)
• Employee contribution rate fixed at 9.0% of regular earnings
• Overtime pay excluded from definition of earnings on a go forward basis
• Retiree indexing suspended effective December 31, 2011 until the plan is funded 110%
• Age 60 as earliest retirement date for new hires after January 2012 with a 7% contribution rate
• Consolidation (one time) of previous deficits into one annual payment
• Amortization of going concern liability over a 15 year term
• City to make minimum annual contribution of 21% of payroll until the plan is fully funded and
indexation is restored
• City will continue to be responsible for any additional losses incurred in future years
What is the impact on employees?
The contribution of employees is not insignificant. Under the proposed reforms they would;
• Have all accrued indexing suspended until the plan is in funding position to absorb costs
• See a reduction in the value future pension benefits from 21% to 16% of payroll
6
• Make a weekly contribution of 9% of regular pay to the plan
• Extend the average earning period from 3 years to 5 years for future benefits
• Agree to a two year wage freeze
• Have overtime removed from the definition of earnings on a go forward basis
In addition, new hires (January 2012) would have a substantially reduced benefit scheme;
a Defined benefit plan based on five year averaging period
• Unreduced retirement at age 60 instead of Rule of 85
• No Indexing in the plan
• Overtime would not pensionable
• A 7% Employee contribution rate based on +/ -14.0% plan value
It should be noted that the changes will have no direct impact on the earned pensions of active
employees other than the suspension of indexing. The impact of the elimination of overtime from the
earnings calculation and elimination of indexing on a go forward basis will vary depending on the nature
and length of service of individual employees.
What is the impact on retirees?
Under this proposal, retirees would continue to get the pensions they have received as of December 31,
2011 however indexing would be suspended on a go- forward basis until such time as the plan is in a
financial position to begin to reinstate some indexing.
The history of indexed benefits is particularly relevant in this instance. Originally, City pension benefits
were not indexed. Any increase was provided on an ad- hoc basis. In 1994 the plan realized a reduction
in its plan liabilities and the available surplus funds allowed indexing at the rate of 2.0% to be introduced
for service after 1992. In effect, plan members benefited from the conversion of available funds for
increased benefits. Again in 2000 the plan was able to extend indexing at the rate of 1% for service from
1975 to 1992. The then employees and now retirees did not in fact pay for the 1% indexing over the
course of their careers. The plan provided that indexation when it was in a financial position to do so
and it is now in a serious deficit position and can no longer afford to offer indexed benefits.
From an internal equity perspective the suspension of indexing for retirees also recognizes that the
liability for retiree benefits represents over half the current funding shortfall and that some contribution
from retirees towards the pension solution is a necessity. As pointed out above, absent reforms, the
very plan benefits themselves will be at risk. Suspending indexation is not very palatable for retirees but
their current pensions will not be reduced.
What is the impact on the City's budget as the plan sponsor?
Until the accrued indexation that was removed is fully restored, the City of Saint John must make a
minimum contribution of 21% of payroll to the pension fund. For further clarity, in years where a
contribution of less than 21% is required, the City will nonetheless make a contribution of 21% of payroll
7
to the fund. In years where a contribution of over 21% of payroll is mandated, the City will make the
higher contribution.
In dollar terms this equates to approximately $13.1M in the 2012 budget. As the calculation is based on
a percentage of payroll, as the payroll costs increase so will the absolute dollar amount increase in each
subsequent year.
Notwithstanding the proposed reforms, the City's annual commitment to funding the pension plan will
be substantial and represents about 22 cents for current service cost and deficit payments.
When would the suspended indexed benefits be reinstated?
The proposal would require that indexing not be restored until the funding ratio in the plan is at 110 %. It
is likely that this would be done on an incremental basis as the plan's financial position permits. The
funding ratio of the plan is currently 70% and would move to approximately 80% with the proposed
reforms.
Is the reform proposal balanced and reasonable for employees, taxpayers and retirees?
Given the magnitude to the going concern deficit and the weak financial position of the pension fund it
must be recognized that aggressive changes are required in order to restore the plan to a strong
financial position and avoid the risk of plan failure. In other words, the solution will be painful for all
stakeholders. At the same time, it was understood that a heavy handed approach that unfairly burdens
one group at the expense of another would not be well received by the provincial government.
• In the case of the employees they are contributing approximately $75M in accrued plan benefits
in order to ensure that base pensions are available in future years.
• In the case of the City as the plan sponsor, the City will be obligated to budget 21% of payroll or
$13.1M in 2011 dollars (CSC and Arrears) each year to the plan for a minimum of 15 years
($195M). The City also retains liability should future plan losses arise.
• In the case of retirees they are contributing approximately $40M by forfeiting accrued indexing
benefits until the plan can afford to pay the cost of these benefits in order to ensure that their
full pensions will be paid.
In effect, each of the three key stakeholders will be making a real and substantial contribution to
correcting the funding situation in the plan. The value of the combined reduction in plan benefits for
retirees and actives equates to approximately $9.OM per year or 15 cents on the tax rate. The value of
the $13.1M City payment equates to approximately 22 cents on the tax rate.
Are there amounts outstanding for 2010 and 2011 while the reform process was underway?
Given that the original reform proposal did not proceed, the City's monthly contributions to the plan
since January 2010 have been lower than required. The City made a retroactive payment in 2011 of
$83M to settle the 2010 arrears. It is estimated that the shortfall for 2011 will be approximately $7-OM.
8
The City is obligated to make this payment to the plan. The actual monthly payment schedule was built
around the original plan reforms and was not an attempt to avoid responsibility for the obligation.
The City has submitted a request to the Department of Local Government seeking to have the 2010 and
2011 payments recognized on our financial statements over a 10 year period in keeping with the long-
term nature of the plan liabilities.
Approval of this request will avoid the requirement to post substantial operating deficits in 2010 and
2011 and just as importantly avoid unnecessary tax rate increases in subsequent years. The Department
of Local Government has advised that this request will be considered as part of the overall reform
initiative and discussions are ongoing to resolve the issue.
How do the proposed changes address the issues of affordability and sustainability?
The proposed reforms address these matters in a variety of ways;
Immediately reduces discount rate to 6.0% - reduces volatility (risk) but increases liability by
$26-OM
• Eliminates loading on mortality rates — more realistic assumption on future mortality
Reduces value of pension plan from21% to 16% - substantial reduction in employee benefits
• Move to a more balanced asset mix in line with maturity of membership
• Elimination /suspension of indexing for actives and retirees reduces plan liability by
approximately $75.OM and shares responsibility for putting the plan on stable financial footing
• Increases funding ratio from 70% to 80.8% - immediately strengthens funding ratio by 10%
• Reduces going concern liability from $131M to $88.3M (with more conservative assumptions)
• Allows for immediate payment of 2010/11 arrears with 10 year deferral
Adoption of changes sets annual cost +/- $13AM (S7)— allows margin of flexibility to absorb
anticipated market losses in 2011
What about the impact of losses in the current year?
The current market volatility although not as severe as that of 2008 is posing an additional financial risk
to the plan. An analysis by the plan actuary shows that at a breakeven point (0% return) the plan
sponsor would have to contribute an additional $1.9M annually to make up for the shortfall. The actual
funding requirement will be lesser or greater depending on the financial results at December 31, 2011.
As a rule of thumb each one percent variation in return will mean a $310,000 positive or negative
impact on the $1.9M estimate. This additional obligation has been considered in the reform process.
Why not just convert the existing plan to a Defined Contribution (DC) plan?
As noted previously the plan has a solvency deficit of approximately $218M. If the plan benefits were
converted to a defined contribution structure the full liability would come due immediately, The City
simply does not have $218M available to cover this cost.
9
Why not offer DC benefits on a go- forward basis?
The proposal reduces the level of defined benefit for new hires by approximately one- third. Employees
have already expressed concerns based on internal equity (ie that two employees doing the same work
would be receiving different levels of benefits). They also argue that the loss of over $75M in benefits is
a more than fair contribution from plan members towards solving the pension shortfall.
Our actuary has also advised that a change of this nature would actually increase costs in the short term
and that any financial benefits would not be realized for about 20 years. Furthermore, the going
concern deficit ($131.OM) relates to benefits already earned so moving to a DC plan would not eliminate
this liability and the additional payments cited above would still have to be paid.
Notwithstanding these concerns the potential to transition to a DC plan on a go- forward basis should
remain an option should the plan's financial position not begin to improve over a reasonable time
frame.
What are the next steps? What is the time line?
The first requirement is to submit a formal request to the Province (Dept. of Justice) to consider the
revised reforms. If a favourable response is received then the formal drafting of the amendments to the
City of Saint John Pension Act would be completed and translated. During the drafting process a number
of key provisions would have to be identified including the trigger points for restoring indexing that has
been suspended, the actual distribution between retirees and actives etc. City staff would work with
the plan actuary and Provincial regulator to finalize these requirements. The formal legislative
amendments would then be approved by Council and submitted to the Province to begin the enactment
process.
If the Province responds in the negative to the revised proposal, it would then be necessary to ascertain
exactly what requirements must be addressed so that timely amendments can be made. The status quo
in the plan is not a financially viable option.
The original target remains the fall sitting of the legislature however this time line is very tight. Should
the provincial authorities decide to proceed in the spring sitting then as noted previously it is imperative
that the needed amendments be made retro- active to January 1, 2012.
Are there are other scenarios available?
The most straightforward scenario is that the City as plan sponsor just accept the increased cost, not
make any plan changes, adopt more conservative assumptions and either increase the tax rate or
reduce services. This approach is not only short - sighted in that it would not address the underlying
financial weakness in the pension plan but it would also create a tax rate environment that would
discourage new investment and growth in the community.
The City working with the plan actuary also developed a scenario that would have accrued indexing
reduced by 1% instead of the full 2%. The only way this is affordable is if the payment term on the
Its]
deficit is extended to 20 years and the assumed rate of return is set at 6.25 %. The extended term and a
higher interest rate assumption increase the risk of plan failure and this option was determined not to
be sustainable.
What other benefit changes were considered?
Consideration was also given to other benefit changes including integrating CPP /OAS with the plan
benefits, using career average earnings in the benefit calculation and eliminating the LTD provisions in
the plan to name a few. The only way to reduce deficit payments is to reduce liabilities and liabilities are
for benefits already accrued.
in the case of integration, this would impact only the current service cost. It would therefore be for
future service only but the impact would be less than eliminating indexation. It was decided to eliminate
indexation on the principle that it is better to retire with a higher pension rather than to retire with a
lower pension but with indexation. The elimination of indexing also reduces the overall plan risk for the
sponsor.
As to the use of Career Average Earnings, this would have had a significant financial impact (6% of
payroll) in addition to the loss of indexing and was deemed an excessive change for active employees.
Changing to career average would decrease the value of the plan from 16% of payroll to 10 %. It would
not have been possible to then keep employee contribution at 9% therefor career average plan was
excluded.
Elimination of LTD benefits was also contemplated however concern about the cost and availability of
LTD coverage outside of the plan for high risk professions and the use of tighter administrative practices
to assess disability claims led to the conclusion that there would be only marginal benefit to
implementing this change.
Should however the proposed suspension /elimination of indexing in the plan not receive the required
legislative approvals then each of these options will have to be reconsidered. In this case a defined
contribution plan for new hires could also become an option.
Our actuaries also advised against creating what they referred to as `benefit cliffs'. For example if you
have a benefit now and retire you retain it but if you wait until January I" to retire you lose the benefit.
This approach poses the risk of creating an unusually large number of retirements in the current year.
What are the risks of the proposed reform?
Undoubtedly the most significant risk is that the needed reforms not take place on a timely basis. The
elected members of Council and the Legislature may be faced with vocal opposition to the planned
reduction in benefits. Inaction will not only expose the taxpayers in the community to a substantial tax
rate increase and /or service reduction but will also mean even more aggressive action on plan benefits
will be required in the future as plan liabilities continue to grow each month.
11
There is also a risk that plan members acting either individually or collectively, launch a legal challenge
to the proposed changes to either delay or prevent their implementation. What, if any, challenge would
be successful can be nothing more than a matter of speculation at this time.
Finally, there is no way of accurately determining when the suspended indexing can be reinstated. Poor
market conditions could mean that benefits are not restored for an extended period of time.
Human Resource Implications
Council should be aware that a reduction in pension benefits can have an adverse impact on employee
retention and recruitment. The consequence of the proposed changes cannot be measured definitively
however it is anticipated that some employees will deem it appropriate to retire earlier than planned
and some employees may opt to move to other employers with better overall compensation. There
could also be a negative impact on employee morale and labour- management relations as the benefit
reductions are implemented.
Conclusion
The City of Saint John Pension Plan is burdened with a $131M going concern deficit as at December 31,
2010. Left unattended, the City as plan sponsor would have to increase its annual contribution to the
plan from approximately $13.OM to $20.3M or $7.3M annually. This would necessitate a 12 cent
increase in the municipal tax rate. Neither this level of annual funding nor a major increase in the tax
rate is affordable or desirable.
A detailed analysis of the financial position of the plan also indicated that there is an unacceptable risk
of plan failure and that changes to the long -term plan assumptions and the asset mix are required in
addition to the supplementary funding in order to render it sustainable.
Simply put, the plan is in need of fundamental reform if it is to be both affordable and sustainable.
Several scenarios were developed to address these issues. The recommended approach is both
sustainable and affordable and meets the established requirements.
The proposed reforms reduce benefits for active employees by suspending accrued indexing, eliminating
indexing on future service, extending the salary averaging period, and removing overtime in the
calculation of pensions. New hires would have no indexing and would also be required to work until age
60 to qualify for an unreduced pension. In addition, the retirees would have their indexing suspended
as of January 2012 until such time as the plan could afford to reinstate the benefit. Finally, the City
would be required to provide annual funding to the plan equal to a minimum of 21% of payroll costs in
order to help restore the financial position of the fund.
It is estimated that taken together the reforms will immediately increase the funding ratio of the plan
from 70% to 81% and significantly reduce the risk of plan failure.
Overall the proposed reforms while aggressive are reasonable and balanced and reflect the need for
each of the key stakeholders to make a real contribution to solving the pension funding dilemma. The
12
requirement for timely action cannot be overstated in order to avoid increased liabilities and the need
for more aggressive benefit reductions.
On a final note, some may suggest that other changes would be more appropriate. The proposed model
is integrated and balanced. In order to reduce the financial impact on one group it will mean an
increased financial demand on another group so as to still achieve the desired reductions. It is
incumbent on those advancing alternatives to demonstrate that they are fair to all and will actually be
effective in addressing the reality of the financial shortfall in the plan.
Input from Other Sources
The City Solicitor, Commissioner of Finance and Plan Actuary have provided input in the report and
recommendation.
Recommendation
RESOLVED that Common Council adopt Option S7, as described in the November 7, 2011
correspondence in this matter from the City Manager addressed to Common Council, as the framework
for amendments to the City of Saint John Pension Act; and
FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the Province of New Brunswick be formally advised accordingly; and
FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the City Manager, the Commissioner of Finance and the City Solicitor be
directed to develop, in conjunction with the Superintendent of Pensions and AON Hewitt, and submit to
Common Council for its consideration and decision, the details of the terms governing the
reintroduction of suspended indexing.
Respectfully submitted,
J. Patrick Woods CGA
City Manager
13
loner of Finance
Schedule A
AQYHeww
Section 1: Going Concern Valuation Results
Going Concern Financial Position of the Plan
The going concern valuation provides an assessment of the Plan's financial position at the valuation date
on the premise that the Plan continues on into the future indefinitely.
The going concern financial position of the Plan as at December 31, 2010 is shown in the following table.
The results as at December 31, 2009 are also shown for comparison purposes.
Going Concern Financial Position
December 31, 2010 December
New assumptions Previous assumptions 31, 2009
M (S) (s)
Assets
Market value of invested assets 372,228,000 372,228,000 332,653,000
Smoothing adjustment 0 0 0
Total assets 372,228,000 372,228,000 332,653,000
Liabilities
Active members
215,896,000
212,963,000
208,463,000
Retired members and beneficiaries
287,085,000
281,817,000
253,250,000
Deferred vested members
164,000
161,000
146,000
Outstanding refunds
x,9,000
439,000
0
Total liabilities
503,584,000
495,380,000
461,859,000
Surplus / (Unfunded liability) (131,356,000) (123,152,000) (129,206,000)
Actuarial Report as at December 31, 2010
City of Saint John Pension Ian
Aon Hewf t i ® Aon Consulting Inc. 2011 —Ali Rights Reserved
7
City of Saint John
Budget impact of Pension Funding
Assumptions:
Unconditional grant
Tax base growth
Financial impact:
Current service cost
Past service cost
Base level funding required
Current funding level
Change in required funding
Tax rate impact
Anticipated 2011 shortfall
based on Investment returns
Additional funding required
no change
Tax rate impact ($600,000 = 1 cent)
3.00%
Schedule B
Without
With Reform Reform
Package Package Difference
4,038,000 6,754,000 2,716,000
7,331,000 13,589,600 6,258,600
11,369,000 20,343,600 8,974,600
13,005,000 13,005,000 -
13,005,000 13,005,000 -
1,636,000 7,338,600 8,974,600
2.70 12.20
1,827,000 1,827,000 -
191,000 9,165,600 8,974,600
0.30 15.30
Schedule C
CITY OF SAINT JOHN PENSION PLAN
SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF ASSUMPTION CHANGES,
G
S2
S7
Actuarial assumptions
- Expected rate of return
6.00%
6.00%
- Mortality table
no loading
no loading
- Valuation of assets
Market Value
Market Value
- Provision for fees (6 %)
Market Value
No
Benefit changes
- Current members and retirees
- Past service (prior to Jan 1 2012)
- FAE
3
3
- Post retirement indexation
no change
suspended
- Unreduced retirement age
no change
no change
- Salary definition
no change
no change
- Future accruals (Jan 1 2012)
- FAE
3
5
- Post retirement indexation
no change
no indexation
- Unreduced retirement age
no change
no change
- Employee contribution
9%
goo
- Salary definition
no change
base only
- New hires
- FAE
3
5
- Post retirement indexation
no change
no indexation
- Unreduced retirement age
no change
60
- Employee contribution
9%
7%
- Salary definition
no change
base only
Relief measures
- consolidation of 2010 deficits
no
yes
- amortization period
15
15
CAUserslpw18560ocumentsl[Copy of Summary scenarios_ V7- adiot- S2378a8bonly- vafue]Feuil1
CITY OF SAINT JOHN PENSION PLAN
SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF ASSUMPTION CHANGES,
ets
(Deficit)
Funding ratio
Employer ($)
Employer (% payroll)
Deficit payment ($) - Inc. 3 %
Deficit payment (% of payroll)
otal Employer ($)
otal Employer (% payroll)
Expected additional employer
contributions due to 2011 losses ($}
Additionnal contributions (% of payroll)
2011 Payroll
2011 Budgeted Employer contributions
Gap
ax rate impact (1 cent = $600,000)
S2 S7
372,228 372,228
535,501 460,494
(163,273) (88,266)
69.5% 80.8%
7,144 4,038
12.3% 6.9%
15,535 j 7,331
26.7% I 12.6%
22,679 ! 11,369
39.0% 19.5%
15,535 I 1,827
26.7% l 3.1%
58,284
58,284
13,005
13,005
9,674
192
16.1 1 0.3
CAUserslpw18660ocumentsl[Copy of Summary scenarios_ V7- adjot- S2378a8bonly- value)Feuil1
CITY OF SAINT JOHN PENSION PLAN
SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF ASSUMPTION CHANGES,
S2 S7
Probability of full funding after 25 years 67.7% 67.5%
Probability of being funded below
70%
1.6%
1.8%
80%
6.6%
7.0%
90%
18.5%
18.9%
100%
33.7%
32.5%
125%
67.5%
65.7%
150%
83.4%
81.6%
rage employer contributions (25 years)
5%
S2 I
17.1%
8.4%
25%
22.0%
11.4%
50%
5%
27.5%
15.8%
75%
37.9%
33.3%
20.7%
95%
o
20.7 /o
43.1
28.9%
can
95%
28.4%
16.8%
tandard deviation
7.9%
6.5%
S2 I
S7
Average employer contributions
First 5 years
5%
31.5%
12.8%
25%
37.9%
17.6%
50%
41.3%
o
20.7 /o
75%
44.6%
23.9%
95%
49.1%
28.1%
=first 10 years
5%
23.6.%
10.3%
25%
32.2%
15.1%
50%
38.9%
20.0%
75%
45.1%
25.2%
95%
52.5%
32.0%
CAUserslpw18561Documentsl[Copy of Summary scenarios_
V7- adjot- S2378a8bonly- value]FeuiI1
CITY OF SAINT JOHN PENSION PLAN
SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF ASSUMPTION CHANGES,
BENEFIT CHANGES AND RELIEF MEASURES AS AT DECEMBER 31, 2010
First 15 years I
5%
25%
50%
75%
95%
20.2%
27.1%
33.6%
41.9%
51.7%
C:IUsers\pw98561Documentsl[Copy of Summary scenarios_ V7- adjot- S2378a8bonly- value]Feuill
9.1%
13.3%
18.2%
25.2%
34.1%
City of Saint John Pension Plan
Analysis of Retirees by Range of Pension
Annual Pension
Cumulative
Range
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
0 to 4,999
17
2.06%
17
2.06%
5,000 to 9,999
64
7.74%
81
9.80%
10,000 to 14,999
88
10.64%
169
20.44%
15,000 to 19,999
82
9.92%
251
30.36%
20,000 to 24,999
101
12.21%
352
42.57%
25,000 to 29,999
101
12.21%
453
54.78%
30,000 to 34,999
94
11.37%
547
66.15%
35,000 to 39,999
99
11.97%
646
78.12%
40,000 to 44,999
66
7.98%
712
86.10%
45,000 to 49,999
45
5.44%
757
91.54%
50,000 to 54,999
34
4.11%
791
95.65%
55,000 to 59,999
29
3.51%
820
99.16%
Over 60,000
7
0.85%
827
100.01%
827