Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinance Committee - January 16, 2020CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FINANCE COMMITTEE AGENDA - Final 100 Civic Center Drive - Crystal Cove Conference Room, Bay 2D Thursday, January 16, 2020 - 3:00 PM Finance Committee Members: Will O'Neill, Chair / Mayor Joy Brenner, Council Member Diane Dixon, Council Member William Collopy, Committee Member John Reed, Committee Member Joe Stapleton, Committee Member Larry Tucker, Committee Member Staff Members: Grace K. Leung, City Manager Dan Matusiewicz, Finance Director / Treasurer Steve Montano, Deputy Director, Finance Marlene Burns, Administrative Specialist to the Finance Director The Finance Committee meeting is subject to the Ralph M. Brown Act. Among other things, the Brown Act requires that the Finance Committee agenda be posted at least seventy-two (72) hours in advance of each regular meeting and that the public be allowed to comment on agenda items before the Committee and items not on the agenda but are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. The Chair may limit public comments to a reasonable amount of time, generally three (3) minutes per person. The City of Newport Beach’s goal is to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in all respects. If, as an attendee or a participant at this meeting, you will need special assistance beyond what is normally provided, we will attempt to accommodate you in every reasonable manner. Please contact Dan Matusiewicz, Finance Director, at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the meeting to inform us of your particular needs and to determine if accommodation is feasible at (949) 644-3123 or dmatusiewicz@newportbeachca.gov. NOTICE REGARDING PRESENTATIONS REQUIRING USE OF CITY EQUIPMENT Any presentation requiring the use of the City of Newport Beach’s equipment must be submitted to the Finance Department 24 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. I.CALL MEETING TO ORDER II.ROLL CALL III.PUBLIC COMMENTS Public comments are invited on agenda and non-agenda items generally considered to be within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. Speakers must limit comments to three (3) minutes. Before speaking, we invite, but do not require, you to state your name for the record. The Finance Committee has the discretion to extend or shorten the speakers’ time limit on agenda or non-agenda items, provided the time limit adjustment is applied equally to all speakers. As a courtesy, please turn cell phones off or set them in the silent mode. IV.CONSENT CALENDAR January 16, 2020 Page 2 Finance Committee Meeting MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 14, 2019A. Recommended Action: Approve and file. DRAFT MINUTES 111419.pdf V.CURRENT BUSINESS OPEB ACTUARIAL VALUATIONA. Summary: Review of OPEB Actuarial Valuation. Recommended Action: Receive and file. INTERNAL AUDIT PROGRAM UPDATEB. Summary: Staff will provide an oral update of plans to implement a robust internal audit and performance audit program. Recommended Action: Receive and file. TOT, CHARTER TAX AND OTHER AUDITS UPDATEC. Summary: Staff will update the committee on the TOT, charter tax and other audit findings performed to date. Recommended Action: Receive and file. STAFF REPORT BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR QUARTER ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2019D. Summary: Staff will report on the budget amendments from the prior quarter. Recommended Action: Receive and file. STAFF REPORT ATTACHMENT A.pdf January 16, 2020 Page 3 Finance Committee Meeting WORK PLAN REVIEWE. Summary: Staff and Finance Committee to review the proposed work plan and adjust as necessary. Recommended Action: Receive and file. ATTACHMENT A VI.FINANCE COMMITTEE ANNOUNCEMENTS ON MATTERS WHICH MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION OR REPORT (NON-DISCUSSION ITEM) VII.ADJOURNMENT Finance Committee Meeting Minutes November 14, 2019 Page 1 of 7 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FINANCE COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 14, 2019 MEETING MINUTES I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 3:03 p.m. in the Crystal Cove Conference Room, Bay 2D, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California 92660. II. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Mayor Pro Tem/Chair Will O’Neill, Council Member Diane Dixon, Council Member Joy Brenner, Committee Member William Collopy, Committee Member John Reed, Committee Member Joe Stapleton and Committee Member Larry Tucker ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Grace K. Leung, Finance Director/Treasurer Dan Matusiewicz, Deputy Director/Finance Steve Montano, Budget Analyst Amy Mayfield, Administrative Manager Angela Crespi, and Theresa Schweitzer Senior Accountant OTHER ENTITIES: Jayson Schmitt, Chandler Asset Management MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC: Jim Mosher and Michael Manniello III. PUBLIC COMMENTS None IV. CONSENT CALENDAR MINUTES OF OCTOBER 10, 2019 Recommended Action: Approve and file. Committee Member Collopy corrected the minutes of October 10, 2019 Page 6, Section F which states “Committee Member Collopy would like to review the Reserve Policy (F-2).” should read “Committee Member Collopy requested a review and rationalization of the reserves”. Chair O’Neill reported Jim Mosher had modifications requested for his comments. MOTION: Committee Member Collopy moved to approve the modification to the minutes and Committee Member Tucker seconded. The motion carried 7 ayes – 0 noes. V. CURRENT BUSINESS A. PRELIMINARY PENSION FUNDING RECOMMENDATION – FISCAL YEAR 2020-21 Summary: Staff will update the committee with the latest information regarding pension actuarial valuations and CalPERS capital market assumptions. Recommended Action: Receive and file. Finance Committee Meeting Minutes November 14, 2019 Page 2 of 7 Chair O’Neill noted that Huntington Beach has a new City Manager and in a recent meeting projected that their unfunded liability payments will double by the end of the next decade. Finance Director/Treasurer Dan Matusiewicz presented the preliminary pension funding recommendation. He advised the discount rate is being phased in over three (3) years from 2016 through 2018 and as the discount rate goes down, the accrued and unfunded liability goes up. The City’s unfunded liability did increase but assets also increased at a slightly higher rate so the overall funded status improved. In response to Council Member Dixon’s inquiry, Finance Director/Treasurer Matusiewicz clarified that the new unfunded liability number as of 2018 is $333 million but that number will start to come down with the additional discretionary payments (ADPs) through 2020. In response to Council Member Tucker’s inquiry, Finance Director/Treasurer Matusiewicz was unable to advise how many other cities are making ADP payments. In response to Council Member Collopy’s inquiry, Finance Director/Treasurer Matusiewicz advised that for some local agencies, the Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL) is on their balance sheet of Orange County and only a line item of pension expense will show in the local agencies’ operating budget. He cited an example of when another City contracts with the Sherriff’s Department, their UAL appears low. Chair O’Neill suggested the committee look at each City and review what they pay for public safety out of their General Fund budget for comparison. He further explained that some of the cities are using approximately 50% of their General Fund budget to pay for public safety due to the UAL. Finance Director/Treasurer Matusiewicz reported that Newport Beach is paying the least amount of interest in comparison with other cities. He expressed concern that accrued liability is increasing at a rate of 6.6% and the General Fund has only grown by 3.4% and is becoming more leveraged against the City’s pension plan and expects that to widen over the years. In response to Chair O’Neill’s inquiry, Finance Director/Treasurer Matusiewicz advised the accrued liability is increasing rapidly due to the reduction in the discount rate. He also stated the maturity of the plan is another reason since there are more people in retirement than in the actual workforce. Council Member Collopy advised that new city's actuals appear to be increasing. Finance Director/Treasurer Matusiewicz noted the accrued liability trend since 2007 has not deviated much from 6.5% - 6.7% through this year, but he anticipates it will taper. In response to Chair O’Neill’s inquiry, Finance Director/Treasurer Matusiewicz advised accrued liability does not reflective of employee contribution offsets. He expressed concern for other cities whose accrued liability is increasing at a high rate relative to their ability to fund the liability. Finance Director/Treasurer Matusiewicz reported that the City’s accrued liability grew at the lowest rate of 4% from 2017 to 2018. He reported the accrued liability is almost five (5) times the City’s annual revenue stream so if a 10% loss of the portfolio occurs, it will represent 50% of annual revenues. He advised that 72% of the accrued liability is associated with retirees and currently active employees are supporting a larger portion of the retirees. In response to Council Member Dixon’s inquiry, Finance Director/Treasurer Matusiewicz advised that a mature plan will have an active support ratio above 60-65%. He noted the average plan has an active support ratio of 125% of active employees to retirees. Chair O’Neill clarified that the normal costs are supposed to offset active employee’s future liabilities. Finance Director/Treasurer Matusiewicz stated that some City employees are paying more than 100% of the normal cost of their benefit. Finance Committee Meeting Minutes November 14, 2019 Page 3 of 7 In response to Chair Collopy’s inquiry, City Manager Leung advised all of CalPERS earnings are assumed at a 7% discount rate. In response to Chair Collopy’s inquiry, City Manager Leung advised when CalPERS brings the discount rate down to 6%, the contribution will grow. Council Member Dixon suggests adding the impact and effects of AB 5 as it will mitigate outsourcing. City Manager Leung advised staff is currently analyzing the City’s contracts to determine the impacts of AB 5. Finance Director/Treasurer Matusiewicz reported that pension tiers are averaging 5% turnover per year from classics to PEPRA. He advised that there is a plan to pay down the losses of 2008, assuming all future actuarial assumptions are being met, but there still is a lot of catching up to do. Finance Director/Treasurer Matusiewicz presented the CalPERS Expected Risk and Return Estimates prepared by Wilshire Consulting in which they suggest an expected return of 5.9% for ten years with the subsequent projected at 7.23%, which will average out. He advised that 68% of all investment results can vary 11.51% from the mean expected return of 7% in any one year resulting in an experience loss of approximately $83 million and the City will need to develop a plan to deal with those potential loses. Finance Director/Treasurer Matusiewicz advised that with CalPERS’ target asset allocation of 50% to Global Equity, 13% to Real Assets, 28% to Fixed Income, 8% to Private Equity and 1% to Liquidity, it is hard to imagine a path forward that would produce an investment return that meets the 7% target return. In response to Finance Director/Treasurer Matusiewicz inquiry, Jayson Schmitt, Executive Vice President, Portfolio Manager at Chandler Asset Management advised there were some optimistic forecasts within the next five (5) years and provided several scenarios of asset blends. He feels that Global Equity could do better than Private Equity and the big hole in this scenario is the interest rate. Finance Director/Treasurer Matusiewicz advised that CalPERS’ capital market assumptions reported that Private Equity is the only class they are assuming will earn more than 7%. In response to Council Member Dixon’s inquiry, Finance Director/Treasurer Matusiewicz advised that CalPERS’s investment in Private Equity is limited to 8% of their portfolio. Chair O’Neill noted there is a path forward but it is difficult to see in the near team. Finance Director/Treasurer Matusiewicz reported that if CalPERS changed their discount rates altogether, the City would incur a UAL of $134 million based on the sensitivity analysis, which would be approximately an additional $14 million per year over 20 years. He presented a worksheet that provided scenarios of prefunding the losses including repayment terms. Committee Member Tucker noted the concession here is that the rates of returns are a different world than the late 1990s and suggested operating on an assumption of a 6.1% discount rate and contributing at a fixed number to provide a buffer. Finance Director/Treasurer Matusiewicz suggested operating on an assumption of a 6.1% discount rate agency for the next five (5) years. In response to Committee Member Tucker, Finance Director/Treasurer Matusiewicz advised the City is not bound to that timeframe and it is self-imposed. Finance Director/Treasurer Matusiewicz noted that one of the problems is that the UAL will start to accumulate which would put the City back to square one in ten years. In response to Committee Member Tucker’s inquiry, Finance Director/Treasurer Matusiewicz stated the $35 million of annual payments takes care of the UAL that has already accrued but the City needs to plan for future losses. Council Member Dixon stated that it is an insurance policy and if it is not needed, it is money in the bank. Finance Committee Meeting Minutes November 14, 2019 Page 4 of 7 Finance Director/Treasurer Matusiewicz noted that $5 million to add to the budget is no small feat and there is a $5 million surplus available this year, but the City would have to start pulling revenue off the table that might otherwise go to community projects or community programs. In response to Chair O’Neill’s inquiry, Finance Director/Treasurer Matusiewicz confirmed there is a $10 million surplus this year. Chair O’Neill explained his thought process is that the City would pay the $35 million and an additional $2 million per year to cover the UAL and the 1% loss within this coming year would be covered by the $5 million surplus. He would rather put the $5 million into a restricted fund reserve and use that to pay the $2 million for this year and future years. He explained that he is concerned about not knowing what future budgets will look like and what the needs of the City will be in those years and beyond. Committee Member Stapleton stated that by putting $5 million in reserves, it is 7% that is not being paid. In response to Committee Member Stapleton’s inquiry, Finance Director/Treasurer Matusiewicz confirmed it would be dollar-cost averaging and would not start until July 2020. In response to Committee Member Tucker’s inquiry, Finance Director/Treasurer Matusiewicz clarified the payment would be applied against the loss basis. He further clarified this process sets aside funding for future obligations and pays off past UALs going forward. In response to Committee Member Tucker’s inquiry, Finance Director/Treasurer Matusiewicz confirmed this scenario will reset the minimum payment. He advised the payment could be applied to the longest base that will give the most bang for the buck and the shortest base that brings down the minimum payment. He also clarified for Council Member Tucker that the minimum payment will come down quicker and the City will pay less down the road. Finance Director/Treasurer Matusiewicz reported that CalPERS finished 2019 with 6.7% investment return and there will likely be some liability gains since inflation was less than assumed. He referenced the amortization schedule in the staff report for a review of the various Anticipatory Prefunding Options (APOs). He also clarified the payment would re-amortize every year. He also noted it would be cheaper to start paying now than to wait. Committee Member Collopy stated it is right to review this item before the budget discussion. He feels that allocating $9 million in ADPs each year is fundable and gets the City back to 14 years at 6.1%. Chair O’Neill stated it is a critical balance between the short term and the long term. He expressed concern that the City has already made a commitment to pay past UALs and does not want to make another commitment to hedge against future costs when the City has outgoing expenses. Committee Member Stapleton stated that if the City does not have the money next year don’t make the discretionary payment. Committee Member Tucker stated there is no scientific reason to take this approach. Council Member Dixon stated there is $1 million in homeless related expenses this year for which the City did not budget for last year. Chair O’Neill noted that $5 million does go along way for those expenses and there is an unbudgeted amount in the current budget. Finance Director/Treasurer Matusiewicz just does not want to lose sight of UAL. Chair O’Neill recommends this item be evaluated year after year. Finance Director/Treasurer Matusiewicz reminded the Finance Committee this is preliminary. Council Member Dixon stated the City needs to balance long-term obligations and for the last five (5) years the City has been on a solid path forward to pay the UAL down. Committee Member Stapleton clarified for the record that the ADP will remain at $35 million and an additional $5 million maybe be included this year. Finance Committee Meeting Minutes November 14, 2019 Page 5 of 7 In response to Committee Member Stapleton’s inquiry, Finance Director/Treasurer Matusiewicz advised that new development would incur development fees and property taxes that will assist with the surplus. Finance Director/Treasurer Matusiewicz would consider using some contingency reserves if necessary to keep up on the ADPs but recommends the Committee review the payment strategy annually. Chair O’Neill called for public comments and hearing none, closed the public comments. MOTION: Chair O’Neill moved to approve the recommendation that the surplus $5 million be used to pay Unfunded Pension Liabilities in the next fiscal year budget and Committee Member Collopy seconded. The motion carried 7 ayes – 0 noes. At 4:04 p.m., Committee Member Stapleton stepped out of the meeting. B. INVESTMENT POLICY REVIEW Summary: Staff and/or one or more investment advisors will discuss the City’s investment policy’s conformance to the overall objectives of preservation of principal, liquidity and return, and its relevance to current law and financial and economic trends. Recommended Action: Receive and file. In response to Council Member Dixon’s inquiry, Deputy Director/Finance Steve Montano advised that a glossary was not previously included in the policy. In response to Committee Member Tucker’s inquiry, Deputy Director/Finance Montano clarified that there are additional terms in the recommended glossary of investment terms than are in the policy. Committee Member Tucker suggested the glossary should be for overall financial policies. At 4:07 p.m., Committee Member Stapleton returned to the meeting. Finance Director/Treasurer Matusiewicz noted that if the policy were to be reviewed for certification, a glossary would be required. City Manager Leung suggested the glossary be reviewed and terms that were not needed be removed. In response to Chair O’Neill’s inquiry, Deputy Director/Finance Montano clarified the recommendation to remove the restriction on purchasing securities rated A1 and/or A+ that are on negative watch is needed because it does not allow for investing a security with a credit rating that is lower than what is currently allowed by government code. Additionally, he advised there could be high quality securities that have a strong prognosis for recovery and gives investment advisors greater flexibility to invest. Committee Member Collopy clarified it could be a situation where an A security dropping to a BBB which is still high quality and suggested that if that should happen, the City’s investment advisors should be obligated to communicate that immediately. In response to Committee Member Tucker’s inquiry, Mr. Schmitt, Chandler Asset Management, advised the maximum position that can be taken on any security is 5%. In response to Committee Member Tucker’s inquiry, Mr. Schmitt cited the example of purchasing IBM securities while it is acquiring another company as a reason to purchasing securities that are on a negative credit watch. Committee Member Tucker suggested that a negative credit watch be defined more clearly. Mr. Schmitt clarified that being on a negative credit watch indicates the rating agencies have determined the security is going to have a different credit profile. City Manager Leung feels that the subsequent paragraph to this term Finance Committee Meeting Minutes November 14, 2019 Page 6 of 7 helps explain the change. Chair O’Neill noted that it needs to be clear when it is being forwarded to City Council to explain the change. Chair O’Neill called for public comments and hearing none, closed the public comments. MOTION: Committee Member Stapleton moved to approve the recommendation for City Council approval and Committee Member Collopy seconded. The motion carried 7 ayes – 0 noes. C. INVESTMENT PERFORMANCE REVIEW Summary: Staff and/or one or more investment advisors will describe the performance of the City's investment portfolio. Recommended Action: Receive and file. Mr. Schmitt provided an overview of the performance of the City’s investment portfolio. He noted that Chandler Asset Management’s standards for the portfolio are safety, liquidity, and yield with the benchmark being the 1-3 year U.S. Treasury benchmark. Additionally, he noted they purchase high-quality fixed income securities that conform to City policies and California Government Code (CGC). He also noted the maximum maturity of any security in the portfolio is five (5) years. Mr. Schmitt reported the average maturity of the portfolio is two (2) years, the average purchase yield of the portfolio is 2.23% and the average market yield is 1.69%. He clarified that as of July 31, the average yield of the maturity of the portfolio was at 2.09% due to falling interest rates. He reported the portfolio has an AA+ rating with a value of $220.1 million and has increased in value. Mr. Schmitt presented an overview of the portfolio by Security Type and noted the majority of the portfolio is in U.S. Government Securities. In response to Committee Member Tucker’s inquiry, Mr. Schmitt advised that none of the securities in the portfolio dropped below an A credit rating. He also clarified that Chandler uses a compliant system that looks at the portfolio’s securities on an ongoing basis and if a specific security falls below the minimum criteria set in the policy, they are required to call the client and inform them in writing. At 4:17 p.m., Council Member Dixon left the meeting. Mr. Schmitt reported on the quality and duration distribution and noted the portfolio earned 1.1% versus the benchmark of 1.03%. In response to Committee Member Tucker’s inquiry, Mr. Schmitt clarified that modified duration is the duration of the portfolio and the portfolio’s sensitivity to interest rates. He also clarified there is Macaulay duration, modified duration, and effective duration. He explained that modified duration takes into account the compounding on a semi-annual basis whereas the Macaulay duration doesn’t take that into account. Lastly, he reported that on October 31 the total portfolio was valued at $225.4 million. In response to Council Member Stapleton’s inquiry, Mr. Schmitt clarified that consolidating to one asset manager helps Chandler understand the total portfolio and helps segment the cash portion to ensure it is allocated properly. He also noted consolidation brought the fees down. Finance Director/Treasurer Matusiewicz noted it also helps with managing the liquidity and staff time in doing so. In response to Council Member Stapleton’s inquiry, Mr. Schmitt clarified that Chandler is managing approximately $19 billion within California with 80% being government agencies and other large hospital systems. Finance Committee Meeting Minutes November 14, 2019 Page 7 of 7 Chair O’Neill called for public comments and hearing none, closed the public comments. There was no further action taken on this item. D. REVIEW AND DISCUSS FINANCE COMMITTEE WORKPLAN Summary: Staff and Finance Committee will review the proposed work plan and adjust as necessary. Recommended Action: Review and Comment. Chair O’Neill reported there will be no December Finance Committee meeting. He also noted the January 14, 2020, Economic Update presentation for City Council is optional. He reported the annual budget planning meeting will take place January 25, 2020, and is optional. He provided a brief overview of the Finance Committee work plan for 2020. At 4:24 p.m., Mr. Mosher arrived at the meeting. Chair O’Neill called for public comments and hearing none, closed the public comments. There was no further action taken on this item. VI. FINANCE COMMITTEE ANNOUNCEMENTS ON MATTERS WHICH MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION OR REPORT (NON- DISCUSSION ITEM) None VII. ADJOURNMENT The Finance Committee adjourned at 4:27 p.m. to the next regular meeting of the Finance Committee. Filed with these minutes are copies of all materials distributed at the meeting. The agenda for the Regular Meeting was posted on November 7, 2019, at 7:57 p.m., in the binder and on the City Hall Electronic Board located in the entrance of the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive. Attest: ___________________________________ _____________________ Will O’Neill, Chair Date Finance Committee January 16, 2019, Finance Committee Agenda Comments These comments on an item on the Newport Beach Finance Committee agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( jimmosher@yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item IV.A. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 14, 2019 Changes to the draft minutes passages shown in italics are suggested in strikeout underline format. Page 2, paragraph 4, sentence 2: “In response to Council Member Collopy’s inquiry, Finance Director/Treasurer Matusiewicz advised that for some local agencies, the Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL) is on their balance sheet of with Orange County and only a line item of pension expense will show in the local agencies’ operating budget.” Page 2, paragraph 3 from end, sentence 1: “Council Member Collopy advised that new city's actuals appear to be increasing.” [?, I am unable to guess what “new city” – possibly “new cities’”? -- or “actuals” this refers to.] Page 2, paragraph 3 from end, sentence 3: “In response to Chair O’Neill’s inquiry, Finance Director/Treasurer Matusiewicz advised accrued liability does not reflective of reflect employee contribution offsets.” Page 3, paragraph 6, sentence 1: “In response to Finance Director/Treasurer Matusiewicz Matusiewicz’s inquiry, Jayson Schmitt, Executive Vice President, Portfolio Manager at Chandler Asset Management advised …” Page 3, paragraph 6, last sentence: “Chair O’Neill noted there is a path forward but it is difficult to see in the near team term.” Page 3, paragraph 2 from end: “Finance Director/Treasurer Matusiewicz suggested operating on an assumption of a 6.1% discount rate agency for the next five (5) years.” [?] Page 4, paragraph 4 from end, sentence 2: “He expressed concern that the City has already made a commitment to pay past UALs and does not want to make another commitment to hedge against future costs when the City has outgoing ongoing expenses.” [??, aren’t all expenses “outgoing”?] Page 4, paragraph 3 from end, sentence 3: “Chair O’Neill noted that $5 million does go along a long way for those expenses and there is an unbudgeted amount in the current budget.” Page 4, last paragraph: “Committee Member Stapleton clarified for the record that the ADP will remain at $35 million and an additional $5 million maybe may be included this year.” Page 5, paragraph 3 from end, sentence 1: “In response to Chair O’Neill’s inquiry, Deputy Director/Finance Montano clarified the recommendation to remove the restriction on purchasing securities rated A1 and/or A+ that are on negative watch is needed because it does not allow for investing in a security with a credit rating that is lower than what is currently allowed by government code.” January 16, 2020, Finance Committee Item IV.A comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 2 Page 5, paragraph 2 from end, sentence 1: “Committee Member Collopy clarified it could be a situation where an A security dropping drops to a BBB which is still high quality and suggested that if that should happen, the City’s investment advisors should be obligated to communicate that immediately.” Page 5, last paragraph, sentence 1: “In response to Committee Member Tucker’s inquiry, Mr. Schmitt cited the example of purchasing IBM securities while it is acquiring another company as a reason to purchasing purchase securities that are on a negative credit watch.” Page 6, Item C, paragraph 2, sentence 2: “He clarified that as of July 31, the average yield of the to maturity of the portfolio was at 2.09% due to falling interest rates.” [?] Page 6, Item C, paragraph 3, sentence 1: “Mr. Schmitt presented an overview of the portfolio by Security Type security type and noted the majority of the portfolio is in U.S. Government Securities.” City of Newport Beach CONTACT Luis Murillo, ASA, MAAA luis.murillo@nyhart.com ADDRESS Nyhart 530 B Street, Ste. 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Actuarial Valuation PHONE Retiree Health Program (619)239-0831 As of June 30, 2019 DRAFT Item No. 5A1 OPEB Actuarial Valuations Additional Materials Received January 16, 2020 Ms. Shannon Espinoza City of Newport Beach One Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re:OPEB Actuarial Valuation Dear Ms. Espinoza: We have enjoyed working on this assignment and are available to answer any questions. Sincerely, NYHART Luis Murillo, ASA, MAAA Consulting Actuary We are presenting our report of the June 30,2019 actuarial valuation conducted on behalf of City of Newport Beach (the “City”)for its retiree health program. The purpose of the valuation is to measure the District’s liability for other postemployment benefits (OPEB)and to determine an actuarially determined contribution (ADC).The ADC is a target or recommended contribution to a defined benefit OPEB plan for the reporting period, determined in accordance with the parameters and in conformity with Actuarial Standards of Practice.The valuation results will also serve as the basis for complying with GASB 75 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2020. A separate GASB 75 accounting report will be provided. The Nyhart Company is an actuarial benefits and compensation consulting firm specializing in group health and retiree health and qualified pension plan valuations. We have set forth the results of our study in this report. Table of Contents Page Section I.Executive Summary 1 Section II.Financial Results 5 Section III.Projected Cash Flows 10 Section IV.Valuation Data 11 Section V.Benefit Plan Provisions 13 Section VI.Actuarial Assumptions and Methods 17 Section VII.Actuarial Certification 20 Section VIII.Glossary 22 City of Newport Beach OPEB Actuarial Valuation Retiree Health Program As of June 30, 2019 City of Newport Beach Retiree Health Plan June 30, 2019 Actuarial Valution Section I. Executive Summary Background The City of Newport Beach City (the “City”)selected Nyhart to perform an updated actuarial valuation of its retiree health program.The purpose of the valuation is to measure the City’s liability for OPEB benefits and to determine an actuarially determined contribution (ADC)for the fiscal periods ending June 30,2021 and June 30,2022.The ADC is a target,or recommended contribution,to a defined benefit OPEB plan for the applicable period,determined in accordance with the parameters and in conformity with Actuarial Standards of Practice.The valuation results will also serve as the basis for complying with GASB 75 applicable for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2021. Effective January 1,2006,the City implemented a Retiree Health Savings program (RHS Plan)for all new full-time employees and for full-time employees whose age plus years of service as of January 1,2006 was less than 46 for public safety employees and 50 for all other employees.A Hybrid Plan was provided for full-time active employees whose age plus years of service as of January 1,2006 was 46 or more for public safety employees and 50 or more for all other employees (unless opting into the RHS Plan).Employees in the Hybrid Plan continue to be eligible to receive the City’s fixed dollar contribution under the prior defined benefit plan at retirement but the contribution is paid into the employee’s RHS account.Employees already retired and eligible for a City contribution at January 1,2006 also continue to receive the City’s fixed dollar contribution under the prior defined benefit plan.Instead of being applied towards medical coverage,the fixed dollar contribution amount less the PEMHCA minimum required employer contribution for those continuing coverage through PEMHCA is made to an RHS account established for the retiree.Part-time employees retiring from the City can elect to continue medical coverage through PEMHCA and receive a City contribution equal to the PEMHCA minimum required employer contribution. At June 30,2019,the District had 553 retired employees receiving or eligible to receive a City contribution for retiree health benefits,plus 52 retirees receiving the PEMHCA minimum required contribution.There were also 60 active employees under the Hybrid Plan eligible to recieve the City's flat dollar contribution in the future if retiring from the City.In addition,there are 123 part time employees who may become eligible to continue coverage through PEMHCA at retirement.The remaining 607 employees participate in the RHS Plan.The city may be reponsible for the PEMHCA minimum required contribution if these employees retire from the City and continue coverage under PEMHCA. The City participates in the CalPERS Health Program for its retiree medical coverage.In general,the premium rates charged to participating employers are the same for each medical plan within each region (or “community”)and are the same for both active and retired employees covered under the same medical plan.An implied rate subsidy can exist when the non-Medicare rates for retirees are the same as for active employees.Since non-Medicare eligible retirees are typically much older than active employees,their actual medical costs are typically higher than for active employees.Both GASB accounting standards and actuarial standards of practices (ASOPs)require that implied rate subsidies be considered in the valuation of medical costs. This valuation includes an estimate of the liability for the implicit rate subsidy. 1 | Page City of Newport Beach Retiree Health Plan June 30, 2019 Actuarial Valuation Section I. Executive Summary Results of the Retiree Health Valuation Changes from Prior Valuation June 30, 2017 Valuation @6.5% $44,614,000 Increase due to passage of time (263,000) Net experience loss 1,747,000 Increase due to liability for new entrants 424,000 Net change due to updated assumptions 114,000 June 30, 2019 Valuation @6.5% $46,636,000 If the amount of the actuarial liability is apportioned into past service, current service,and future service components;the past service component (actuarial accrued liability now referred to as Total OPEB Liability)is $46,635,812 (including $9,544,646 for the implicit rate subsidy),the current service component (normal cost or current year accrual)is $519,496 (including $234,996 for the implicit rate subsidy)and the future service component (not yet accrued liability)is $4,164,786 (including $2,149,625 for the implicit rate subsidy). The valuation reflects updated census,plan,and rate information.In addition,there were a couple of assumption changes as noted in Section VI including updates to the initial healthcare trend rates.A reconciliation of the approximate change in the total (accrued)OPEB liability from the prior valuation is provided below: We have determined that the amount of the present value of the projected City pay-as-you-go contributions (actuarial liability)for OPEB benefits,as of June 30,2019,the valuation date,is $51,320,094,(including $11,929,267 for the implicit rate subsidy).This amount is based on a discount rate of 6.50%.The amount represents the present value of all benefits projected to be paid by the City for current and future retirees.If the City were to have this amount in a fund earning interest at the rate of 6.50%per year,and all other actuarial assumptions were met,the fund would have enough to pay the City’s required contribution for retiree health benefits.This includes benefits for the current retirees as well as the current active employees expected to retire in the future. The valuation does not consider employees not yet hired as of the valuation date. Actuarial Liability is $51,320,094 $46,635,812$519,496 $4,164,786 June 30, 2019 Total (Accrued) OPEB Liability Service Cost Future Service Accruals 2 | Page City of Newport Beach Retiree Health Plan June 30, 2019 Actuarial Valuation Section I. Executive Summary Funding Actuarially Determined Contribution (ADC) Actuarial Basis The actuarially determined contribution (ADC),assuming the City’s funding strategy,is to fund the normal cost (current accrual for benefits being earned)plus an amortization of the unfunded accrued liability-or net OPEB liability-at June 30,2019 equal to $4,108,719 for the fiscal year ending June 30,2021.This includes $2,414,191 for the District’s explicit contribution and $1,694,528 for the implicit rate subsidy.The projected contribution for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2022 is $4,124,923. The estimated pay-as-you-go cost for retiree health benefits for the 2019/2020 fiscal year is approximately $3,714,331 (including $822,563 for the implicit rate subsidy). This amount includes payments for employees expected to retire during the 2019/2020 fiscal year. The City's funding policy is to pre-fund at least the actuarially determined contribution (ADC)through the California Employers’Retiree Benefit Trust (CERBT)under investment strategy 1.The market value of assets in the Trust as of June 30,2019 is $23,185,035.The actuarial value of assets is equal to the market value of assets.The Net (unfunded)OPEB Liability at June 30,2019 is $23,450,777.The Plan’s funded ratio (actuarial value of assets over Total OPEB Liability) is 50%. The actuarial valuation is based on the assumptions and methods outlined in Section VI of the report.To the extent that a single or a combination of assumptions is not met,the future liability may fluctuate significantly from its current measurement.As an example,the healthcare cost increase anticipates that the rate of increase in medical cost will be at moderate levels and decline over several years.Increases higher than assumed would bring larger liabilities and expensing requirements.A 1%increase in the healthcare trend rate for each future year would increase the actuarially determined contribution by 12%.A 1%decrease in the healthcare trend rate for each future year would decrease the actuarially determined contribution by 9%. Another key assumption used in the valuation is the discount (interest)rate which is based on the expected rate of return of plan assets.The valuation is based on a discount rate of 6.50%.A 1%decrease in the discount rate would increase the actuarially determined contribution by 20%. A 1% increase in the discount rate would decrease the actuarially determined contribution by 18%. 3 | Page City of Newport Beach Retiree Health Plan June 30, 2019 Actuarial Valuation Section I. Executive Summary The valuation is based on the census,plan and rate information provided by the District.To the extent that the data provided lacks clarity in interpretation or is missing relevant information,this can result in liabilities different than those presented in the report.Often missing or unclear information is not identified until future valuations. 4 | Page City of Newport Beach Retiree Health Plan June 30, 2019 Actuarial Valuation Section II. Financial Results A. Valuation Results Explicit Implicit Total Actives $8,082,180 $6,716,767 $14,798,947 Retirees 31,308,647 5,212,500 36,521,147 Total $39,390,827 $11,929,267 $51,320,094 Actives $5,782,519 $4,332,146 $10,114,665 Retirees 31,308,647 5,212,500 36,521,147 Total $37,091,166 $9,544,646 $46,635,812 3. Normal Cost $284,500 $234,996 $519,496 No. of Active Employees 790 Average Age 42.5 Average Past Service 12.3 Estimated Payroll $ 72,042,341 No. of Retired Employees 605 Average Age 68.6 Average Retirement Age 55.2 1. Actuarial Liability or Present Value of Benefits 2. Total OPEB Liability (TOL) The table below presents the employer liabilities associated with the City’s retiree health benefits.The actuarial liability is the present value of all City-paid benefits projected to be paid under the program.The total OPEB liability (TOL)-previously referred to as the actuarially accrued liability-reflects the amount attributable to the past service of current employees and retirees.The normal cost reflects the accrual attributable for the current period. 5 | Page City of Newport Beach Retiree Health Plan June 30, 2019 Actuarial Valuation Section II. Financial Results B. Reconciliation of Market Value of Plan Assets 6/30/2018 6/30/2019 1. Beginning Market Value of Assets $19,094,690 $21,696,948 2. Contribution 4,675,193 3,834,916 3. Net Investment Income 1,605,114 1,507,148 4. Benefit Payments (3,641,715) (3,842,531) 5. Administrative Expenses (36,334) (11,446) 6. Ending Market Value of Assets $21,696,948 $23,185,035 7. Estimated Rate of Return 8.2%6.9% C. Development of Actuarial Value of Assets D. Development of Net OPEB Liability (NOL) Explicit Implicit Total 1. Total (Accrued) OPEB Liability $37,091,166 $9,544,646 $46,635,812 2. Actuarial Value of Assets (23,185,035)0 (23,185,035) 3. Net (Unfunded Accrued) OPEB Liability (NOL)$13,906,131 $9,544,646 $23,450,777 4. Funded % Ratio 63%0%50% The actuarial value of assets is based on the market value of assets plus any contribution receivable or benefits payable. The actuarial value of assets at June 30, 2019 is $23,185,035. The reconciliation of Plan Assets for the last two fiscal years is presented below:Fiscal Year Ending The table below presents the development of the net OPEB liability previously referred to as the unfunded actuarial accrued liability. The net OPEB liability is the excess of the TOL over the actuarial value of plan assets. 6 | Page City of Newport Beach Retiree Health Plan June 30, 2019 Actuarial Valuation Section II. Financial Results E. Payment Credited to prior Net OPEB Liability (NOL) bases F. Schedule of Amortization Bases FYE NOL Base Payment Established Remaining Periods Explicit NOL 6/30/2019 Implicit NOL 6/30/2019 Total NOL 6/30/2019 Explicit Amortization Payment Implicit Amortization Payment Total Amortization Payment 2018 $23,414,769 $3,257,104 6/30/2018 9 $14,993,292 $6,686,333 $21,679,625 $2,252,563 $1,004,541 $3,257,104 2019 1,771,152 262,390 6/30/2019 10 (1,087,161)2,858,313 1,771,152 (161,059)423,449 262,390 Total $13,906,131 $9,544,646 $23,450,777 $2,091,504 $1,427,990 $3,519,494 $23,414,769 $3,257,104 $21,679,625 Separate payment schedules for the Net OPEB Liability will be established annually and amortized and paid over a specific period of time on a level- dollar basis.All bases are amortized using assumptions from the current valuation including the current discount rate of 6.5%.Generally,in an actuarial valuation,the separate bases may consist of changes in the Net OPEB liability due to plan changes,actuarial assumption changes, actuarial methodology changes, and/or gains and losses. Payment periods are determinded by the City's funding policy. One of the two components of the actuarially determined contribution (ADC)is a payment to the Net (unfunded)OPEB Liability.The prior valuation created a NOL payment base as of June 30,2018.The base has been updated to reflect expected payments and interest through the valuation date of June 30, 2019. The expected Net OPEB Liability will be used in determining the new amortization base as of June 30, 2019. NOL Bases as of 6/30/2018 Expected Payment 6/30/2019 Expected NOL Bases as of 6/30/2019 7 | Page City of Newport Beach Retiree Health Plan June 30, 2019 Actuarial Valuation Section II. Financial Results G. Actuarially Determined Contribution FY2020/2021 Explicit Implicit Total 1. Normal Cost at End of Fiscal Year $322,687 $266,538 $589,225 2. Amortization of NOL 2,091,504 1,427,990 3,519,494 3. Actuarially Determined Contribution (ADC)$2,414,191 $1,694,528 $4,108,719 4. Estimated Payroll $72,042,341 $72,042,341 $72,042,341 5. ADC as % of Payroll 3.35%2.35%5.70% FY2021/2022 Explicit Implicit Total 1. Normal Cost at End of Fiscal Year $331,561 $273,868 $605,429 2. Amortization of NOL 2,091,504 1,427,990 3,519,494 3. Actuarially Determined Contribution (ADC)$2,423,065 $1,701,858 $4,124,923 4. Estimated Payroll $74,023,505 $74,023,505 $74,023,505 5. ADC as % of Payroll 3.27%2.30%5.57% The table below presents the development of the actuarially determined contribution (ADC)for the fiscal year ending June 30,2021 and for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2022. 8 | Page City of Newport Beach Retiree Health Plan June 30, 2019 Actuarial Valuation Section II. Financial Results G. Sensitivity Analysis: Dollar ($) Increase/ (Decrease) Percentage (%) Increase/ (Decrease) 1% Decrease in Discount Rate - Actuarial Liability $6,388,354 12% - TOL $4,684,384 10% - NOL $4,684,384 20% - ADC $815,444 20% 1% Increase in Discount Rate - Actuarial Liability ($5,186,595)-10% - TOL ($3,975,617)-9% - NOL ($3,975,617)-17% - ADC ($755,330)-18% 1% Increase in Future Healthcare Trend Rates - Actuarial Liability $3,674,672 7% - TOL $2,424,390 5% - NOL $2,424,390 10% - ADC $480,301 12% 1% Decrease in Future Healthcare Trend Rates - Actuarial Liability ($2,678,778)-5% - TOL ($1,748,859)-4% - NOL ($1,748,859)-7% - ADC ($349,845)-9% The impact of a 1%decrease and increase in the discount (interest)rate and the impact of a 1%increase and decrease in future healthcare trend rates on the City’s actuarial liability, TOL, NOL and the ADC is provided below: 9 | Page City of Newport Beach Retiree Health Plan June 30, 2019 Actuarial Valuation Section III. Projected Cash Flows The expected employer cash flows for selected future years are provided in the following table: FY Explicit Implicit City Total FY Explicit Implicit City Total FY Explicit Implicit City Total 2019/20 $ 2,891,768 $ 822,563 $ 3,714,331 2033/34 $ 2,654,438 $ 665,161 $ 3,319,599 2055/56 $ 1,571,437 $ 455,382 $ 2,026,819 2020/21 $ 2,916,368 $ 861,179 $ 3,777,547 2034/35 $ 2,609,245 $ 669,684 $ 3,278,929 2060/61 $ 1,327,298 $ 125,137 $ 1,452,435 2021/22 $ 2,932,837 $ 885,672 $ 3,818,509 2035/36 $ 2,563,420 $ 711,644 $ 3,275,064 2065/66 $ 1,103,223 $ 5,159 $ 1,108,382 2022/23 $ 2,938,531 $ 866,172 $ 3,804,703 2036/37 $ 2,516,030 $ 695,735 $ 3,211,765 2070/71 $ 897,663 $ 0 $ 897,663 2023/24 $ 2,936,406 $ 870,908 $ 3,807,314 2037/38 $ 2,465,045 $ 746,159 $ 3,211,204 2075/76 $ 678,148 $ 0 $ 678,148 2024/25 $ 2,927,765 $ 885,735 $ 3,813,500 2038/39 $ 2,412,089 $ 810,454 $ 3,222,543 2080/81 $ 445,186 $ 0 $ 445,186 2025/26 $ 2,910,430 $ 847,309 $ 3,757,739 2039/40 $ 2,357,191 $ 891,808 $ 3,248,999 2085/86 $ 239,553 $ 0 $ 239,553 2026/27 $ 2,891,004 $ 863,403 $ 3,754,407 2040/41 $ 2,301,869 $ 914,291 $ 3,216,160 2090/91 $ 98,429 $ 0 $ 98,429 2027/28 $ 2,866,060 $ 846,026 $ 3,712,086 2041/42 $ 2,243,383 $ 983,384 $ 3,226,767 2095/96 $ 27,969 $ 0 $ 27,969 2028/29 $ 2,836,572 $ 825,539 $ 3,662,111 2042/43 $ 2,183,415 $ 1,059,469 $ 3,242,884 2100/101 $ 4,737 $ 0 $ 4,737 2029/30 $ 2,805,983 $ 801,345 $ 3,607,328 2043/44 $ 2,123,202 $ 1,053,521 $ 3,176,723 2105/106 $ 355 $ 0 $ 355 2030/31 $ 2,772,118 $ 729,094 $ 3,501,212 2044/45 $ 2,064,203 $ 993,335 $ 3,057,538 2110/111 $ 4 $ 0 $ 4 2031/32 $ 2,734,885 $ 705,777 $ 3,440,662 2045/46 $ 2,005,403 $ 1,008,768 $ 3,014,171 2115/116 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 2032/33 $ 2,697,437 $ 676,639 $ 3,374,076 2050/51 $ 1,790,974 $ 740,688 $ 2,531,662 All Years $ 115,372,193 $ 31,358,535 $ 146,730,728 The valuation process includes the projection of the expected benefits (including the explicit City contribution and the implicit rate subsidy)to be paid by the City under its retiree health benefits program.This expected cash flow takes into account the likelihood of each employee reaching age for eligibility to retire and receive health benefits.The projection is performed by applying the turnover assumption to each active employee for the period between the valuation date and the expected retirement date.Once the employees reach their retirement date,a certain percent are assumed to enter the retiree group each year.Employees already over the latest assumed retirement age as of the valuation date are assumed to retire immediately.The per capita cost as of the valuation date is projected to increase at the applicable healthcare trend rates both before and after the employee's assumed retirement.The projected per capita costs are multiplied by the number of expected future retirees in a given future year to arrive at the cash flow for that year.Also,a certain number of retirees will leave the group each year due to expected deaths or reaching a limit age and this group will cease to be included in the cash flow from that point forward.Because this is a closed-group valuation,the number of retirees dying each year will eventually exceed the number of new retirees,and the size of the cash flow will begin to decrease and eventually go to zero. $0.0 $5.0 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040 2042 2044 2046 2048Millions Implicit Explicit 10 | Page Retiree Health Plan GASB 75 Report Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2020 (Measured at June 30, 2019) Valuation Data 11 | Page The valuation was based on the census furnished to us by the City. A reconciliation and summary data statistics as of the Valuation Date are provided in the following tables: Age Distribution of Eligible Retired Participants & Beneficiaries Age Miscellaneous Safety Total* MRC Only Waives Grand Total <50 0 0 0 6 12 18 50-54 3 11 14 12 15 41 55-59 29 32 61 11 11 83 60-64 56 50 106 9 15 130 65-69 62 65 127 6 14 147 70-74 64 46 110 4 15 129 75-79 38 30 68 3 8 79 80-84 32 15 47 1 14 62 85+ 15 5 20 0 21 41 Total: 299 254 553 52 125 730 Average Age: 70.1 67.6 69.0 59.3 67.7 68.1 Average Retirement Age: 58.1 52.0 55.3 54.2 50.7 54.4 * Note: Currently receiving the $400 or $450 per month contribution. Age/Service Distribution of All Active Benefit Eligible Employees Age/Service 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 Total Hybrid Plan RHS Plan Part Time 20-24 26 26 0 13 13 25-29 77 14 3 94 0 61 33 30-34 42 34 28 2 106 0 85 21 35-39 22 24 52 25 3 126 0 117 9 40-44 23 9 31 43 7 113 0 106 7 45-49 11 9 22 38 18 6 2 106 0 99 7 50-54 15 9 14 20 16 20 15 3 0 112 21 78 13 55-59 5 1 7 11 12 11 11 2 0 60 22 32 6 60-64 2 3 6 3 4 4 5 1 0 28 12 12 4 65-69 4 0 4 2 2 1 0 0 0 13 3 4 6 70+ 2 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 6 2 0 4 Total: 229 104 167 145 62 42 35 6 0 790 60 607 123 Average Age: 42.1 58.1 41.7 38.7 Average Service: 12.3 28.6 11.8 7.2 Retiree Health Plan GASB 75 Report Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2020 (Measured at June 30, 2019) Valuation Data 12 | Page Age/Service Distribution of Benefit Eligible Miscellaneous Employees Age/Service 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 Total Hybrid Plan RHS Plan Part Time 20-24 19 19 0 6 13 25-29 56 8 1 65 0 35 30 30-34 27 12 14 1 54 0 34 20 35-39 16 12 31 12 71 0 63 8 40-44 22 4 14 21 4 65 0 58 7 45-49 11 8 7 25 10 3 64 0 58 6 50-54 15 8 13 13 12 14 10 1 86 12 61 13 55-59 5 1 7 11 9 8 10 2 53 17 30 6 60-64 2 2 6 3 4 4 4 1 26 11 11 4 65-69 4 0 4 2 2 1 0 0 0 13 3 4 6 70+ 2 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 6 2 0 4 Total: 179 56 97 89 41 30 26 4 0 522 45 360 117 Average Age 43.5 59.1 43.5 39.0 Average Service 12.0 28.3 11.7 6.9 Age/Service Distribution of Benefit Eligible Safety Employees Age/Service 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 Total Hybrid Plan RHS Plan Part Time 20-24 7 7 0 7 0 25-29 21 6 2 29 0 26 3 30-34 15 22 14 1 52 0 51 1 35-39 6 12 21 13 3 55 0 54 1 40-44 1 5 17 22 3 48 0 48 1 45-49 0 1 15 13 8 3 2 42 0 41 0 50-54 0 1 1 7 4 6 5 2 26 9 17 0 55-59 0 0 0 0 3 3 1 0 7 5 2 0 60-64 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 1 0 65-69 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total: 50 48 70 56 21 12 9 2 0 268 15 247 6 Average Age 39.3 55.1 38.9 34.7 Average Service 13.0 29.4 11.9 14.4 Retiree Health Plan GASB 75 Report Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2020 (Measured at June 30, 2019) Benefit Plan Provisions 13 | Page This study analyzes the post-retirement health benefits provided by the City. Currently, eligible active employees are offered a choice of medical (including prescription drug coverage) plans through the CalPERS Health Program under the Public Employees’ Medical and Hospital Care Act (PEMHCA). The City offers the same medical plans to eligible retirees except once a retiree is eligible for Medicare, the retiree must join a Medicare HMO or Supplement Plan with Medicare being the primary payer. Prior to January 1, 2006, the City sponsored a defined benefit healthcare plan which provided a fixed dollar contribution towards the cost of medical coverage for eligible employees continuing medical coverage through PEMHCA at retirement. The City’s contribution varied by employee group (up to a maximum of $450 per month for Police employees and $400 for all other employees). Effective January 1, 2006, the City implemented a Retiree Health Savings program (RHS) for all new full-time employees (Category 1) and for full-time employees whose age plus service as of January 1, 2006 was less than 46 for public safety employees and 50 for all other employees (Category 2). Full-time active employees whose age plus service as of January 1, 2006 was 46 or more for public safety employees and 50 or more for all other employees (Category 3) continued to be eligible to receive the City’s fixed dollar contribution under the prior defined benefit plan at retirement but the contribution is paid into the employee’s RHS account. Employees already retired and eligible for a City contribution at January 1, 2006 (Category 4) continued to receive the City’s contribution under the prior defined benefit plan but instead of being applied towards medical coverage, the fixed dollar contribution amount less the minimum required employer PEMHCA contribution for those continuing coverage through PEMHCA is made to an RHS account established for the retiree. Employees in Category 3 could make a one-time election to be treated similarly to Category 2 employee with those not electing remaining in a Hybrid Plan (includes both the City’s fixed dollar contribution but also some components of the RHS Plan). A description of the funding components is outlined in the chart on the following page. The RHS is a Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA) sponsored by the City which reimburses a participant for post-employment medical (PEMHCA plan) dental, vision, long-term care, miscellaneous medical expenses, and the PEMHCA minimum. In general, the RHS is a defined contribution program sponsored by the City with several funding components as outlined in the table on the following page. Any balance in the employee’s RHS account after the death of the employee and eligible spouse and dependents will be forfeited. Part-time employees can continue medical coverage through PEMHCA and receive the PEMHCA minimum required contribution from the City which is scheduled to increase in the future based on the medical portion of CPI. A history of the increases in past years and current amounts are as follows: Calendar Year Minimum Required Employer Contribution 2012 $112.00 2013 $115.00 2014 $119.00 2015 $122.00 2016 $125.00 2017 $128.00 2018 $133.00 2019 $136.00 2020 2021+ $139.00 Adjusted Annually to reflect Medical Portion of CPI Retiree Health Plan GASB 75 Report Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2020 (Measured at June 30, 2019) Benefit Plan Provisions 14 | Page In general, the RHS is a defined contribution program sponsored by the City with the following funding components: Category 1 Category 2 Category 3* Category 4 Part A – Pre- Retirement Employee Contributions o 1% of base pay mandatory contribution o effective immediately upon employment o 1% of base pay mandatory contribution o effective January 1, 2006 o 1% of base pay mandatory contribution o effective January 1, 2006 None Part B – Pre- Retirement City Contributions: o City contributes $2.50 per month for each year of age plus service during employment o effective upon 5 years of vesting service; immediate vesting for industrial disability o retroactively deposited; biweekly thereafter o City contributes $2.50 per month for each year of age plus service during employment o effective upon 5 years of vesting service; immediate vesting for industrial disability o retroactively deposited; biweekly thereafter None None Part C – Leave Conversion: o mandatory transfer of a portion of accumulated leave during any leave buyout o amount of leave conversion varies by bargaining unit & subject to negotiation o not payable in cash o mandatory transfer of a portion of accumulated leave during any leave buyout o amount of leave conversion varies by bargaining unit & subject to negotiation o not payable in cash o mandatory transfer of a portion of accumulated leave during any leave buyout o amount of leave conversion varies by bargaining unit & subject to negotiation o not payable in cash Part D – Conversion Contribution: None o For fully converted employees who retire from the plan only o City will make a one-time contribution of $100 per month the employee contributed to the plan prior to January 1, 2006 with a cap of $18,000 o City will make a one-time contribution of $75 per month the employee contributed to the plan January 1, 2006 with a cap of $13,500 Part E – Post Retirement Contribution o City will provide the PEMHCA minimum contribution when a retiree’s RHS account value has been exhausted o City will provide the PEMHCA minimum contribution when a retiree’s RHS account value has been exhausted o City will contribute $400 per month ($450 for Police employees retiring prior to January 1, 2006) o City will contribute $400 per month ($450 for Police employees) to retiree’s or surviving spouse’s RHS account Part F – Other Pre- Retirement Employee Contributions: None None o Active full-time employees are required to make a contribution of $100 per month None *Employees making a one-time election into the RHS Plan are treated as Category 2 employees. Retiree Health Plan GASB 75 Report Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2020 (Measured at June 30, 2019) Benefit Plan Provisions 15 | Page Premium Rates The City participates in the CalPERS Health Program, a community-rated program, for medical coverage. The tables below summarize the calendar 2017 and 2018 monthly medical premiums for the primary medical plans in which the retirees are enrolled. 2019 Other So. Cal. Region Kaiser BS HMO PERS Care PERS Choice PERS Select Retiree Only $ 628.63 $ 760.04 $ 907.29 $ 721.11 $ 462.71 Retiree Plus Spouse $1,257.26 $1,520.08 $1,814.58 $1,442.22 $ 925.42 Retiree Plus Family $1,634.44 $1,976.10 $2,358.95 $1,874.89 $1,203.05 Retiree Only- Medicare $ 323.74 N/A $ 394.83 $ 360.41 $ 360.41 Retiree Plus Spouse – Medicare $ 647.48 N/A $ 789.66 $ 720.82 $ 720.82 2019 Other So. Cal. Region (Continued) Sharp HMO UHC HMO Anthem HMO Select Anthem HMO Traditional Health Net Salud Health Net Smart Care Retiree Only $ 593.66 $ 646.65 $ 625.07 $ 830.89 $ 427.81 $ 642.71 Retiree Plus Spouse $1,187.32 $1,293.30 $1,250.14 $1,661.78 $ 855.62 $1,285.42 Retiree Plus Family $1,543.52 $1,681.29 $1,625.18 $2,160.31 $1,112.31 $1,671.05 Retiree Only- Medicare N/A $ 299.37 N/A $ 357.44 N/A N/A Retiree Plus Spouse – Medicare N/A $ 598.74 N/A $ 714.88 N/A N/A 2020 Region 2 Kaiser BS HMO PERS Care PERS Choice PERS Select Retiree Only $ 645.24 $ 909.87 $ 986.66 $ 736.28 $ 451.54 Retiree Plus Spouse $1,290.48 $1,819.74 $1,973.32 $1,472.56 $ 903.08 Retiree Plus Family $1,677.62 $2,365.66 $2,565.32 $1,914.33 $1,174.00 Retiree Only- Medicare $ 339.43 N/A $ 384.78 $ 351.39 $ 351.39 Retiree Plus Spouse – Medicare $ 678.86 N/A $ 769.56 $ 702.78 $ 702.78 Retiree Health Plan GASB 75 Report Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2020 (Measured at June 30, 2019) Benefit Plan Provisions 16 | Page 2020 Region 2 (Continued) Sharp UHC HMO Anthem HMO Select Anthem HMO Traditional Health Net Smart Care Health Net Salud Retiree Only $ 606.02 $ 671.60 $ 654.04 $ 934.95 $ 719.26 $ 435.14 Retiree Plus Spouse $1,212.04 $1,343.20 $1,308.08 $1,869.90 $1,438.52 $ 870.28 Retiree Plus Family $1,575.65 $1,746.16 $1,700.50 $2,430.87 $1,870.08 $1,131.36 Retiree Only- Medicare N/A $ 327.03 $ 388.15 $ 388.15 N/A N/A Retiree Plus Spouse – Medicare N/A $ 654.06 $ 766.30 $ 766.30 N/A N/A Retiree Health Plan GASB 75 Report Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2020 (Measured at June 30, 2019) Actuarial Assumptions and Methods 17 | Page The liabilities set forth in this report are based on the actuarial assumptions described in this section. Fiscal Year: July 1st to June 30th Valuation Date: June 30, 2019 Funding Policy: The actuarially determined contribution (ADC) assuming the City’s funding strategy is to fund the normal cost (current accrual for benefits being earned) plus an amortization of the net (unfunded accrued) OPEB liability over 10 years. Expected Rate of Return: 6.5% per annum. This discount rate assumes the City continues to fully fund for its retiree health benefits through the California Employers’ Retiree Benefit Trust (CERBT) under its investment allocation strategy 1. The rate reflects the CERBT published median interest rate for strategy 1 of 7.28% with an additional margin for adverse deviation. Discount Rate: 6.5% per annum. Inflation: 2.75% per annum Merit Increases: Merit increases from the most recent CalPERS pension plan experiences study. The benefits are not payroll related but each individual’s projected cost is allocated over their lifetime as a level-percentage of pay. Wage Inflation: 3.0% per annum, in aggregate. Salary Increases: For cost method purposes the merit increases from the CalPERS pension plan are used. Pre-retirement Turnover: According to the termination rates under the 2017 experience study for the CalPERS pension plan [Updated from the 2014 CALPERS experience study rates] Mortality: According to the mortality rates under the 2017 experience study for the CalPERS pension plan. [Updated from the 2014 CALPERS experience study rates] Disability Rates: According to the disability rates under the 2017 experience study for the CalPERS pension plan. [Updated from the 2014 CALPERS experience study rates] Retiree Health Plan GASB 75 Report Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2020 (Measured at June 30, 2019) Actuarial Assumptions and Methods 18 | Page Retirement Rates: According to the retirement rates under the 2017 experience study for the CalPERS pension plan: Miscellaneous Employees Tier 1 – 2.5%@ Age 55 Tier 2 – 2.0%@ Age 60 Tier 3 – 2.0%@ Age 62 Fire Employees Tier 1 – 3.0%@ Age 50 Tier 2 – 2.0%@ Age 50 Tier 3 – 2.7%@ Age 57 Safety Employees Tier 1 – 3.0%@ Age 50 Tier 2 – 3.0%@ Age 55 Tier 3 – 2.7%@ Age 57 [Updated from the 2014 CALPERS experience study rates] Participation Rates: 100% of eligible full-time employees under the Hybrid Plan are assumed to participate at retirement with 65% assumed to continue coverage through PEMHCA. 18% of eligible part-time employees are assumed to elect to continue coverage under PEMHCA at retirement. For employees in the RHS Plan, the City is responsible for the PEMHCA minimum required contribution but may be eligible for reimbursement by the retiree from their individual RHS account. For purposes of the valuation, 35% of employees in the RHS Plan are assumed to continue coverage under PEMHCA at retirement with the City paying the full PEMHCA minimum required contribution. Spouse Coverage: 60% of future retirees are assumed to cover their spouse. Male spouses are assumed to be 3 years older than female spouses. Actual spouse coverage and spouse ages are used for current retirees. Waived Retiree Re-election: 20% of the current retiree population currently under 65 re-elect PEMHCA plan at age 65; 0% of those currently over age 65 re-elect. Claim Cost Development: The valuation claim costs are based on the premiums paid for medical insurance coverage. The City participates in CalPERS, a community rated plan. An implicit rate subsidy can exist when the non-Medicare rates for retirees are the same as for active employees. Since non-Medicare eligible retirees are typically much older than active employees, their actual medical costs are typically higher than for active employees. The current valuation contains an estimate of the implicit rate subsidy. Retiree Health Plan GASB 75 Report Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2020 (Measured at June 30, 2019) Actuarial Assumptions and Methods 19 | Page Medical Trend Rates: Medical costs are adjusted in future years by the following trends: FYE Trend 2020 6.5% 2021 6.0% 2022 5.5% 2023+ 5.0% [The prior valuation assumed 0.5% lower initial trend rates for HMO.] Minimum Contribution: The PEMHCA minimum required contribution is assumed to increase 4.0% per year. Fixed Dollar Contribution: Assumed to remain constant in future years. Medicare Participation: Assume 100% participation. Actuarial Cost Method: The actuarial cost method used to determine the allocation of the retiree health actuarial liability to the past (accrued), current and future periods is the Entry Age Normal (EAN) cost method. The EAN cost method is a projected benefit cost method which means the “cost” is based on the projected benefit expected to be paid at retirement. The EAN normal cost equals the level annual amount of contribution from the employee’s date of hire (entry date) to their retirement date that is sufficient to fund the projected benefit. As required by GASB 75, the normal cost is calculated to remain level as a percentage of pay. The EAN actuarial accrued liability equals the present value of all future benefits for retired and current employees and their beneficiaries less the portion expected to be funded by future normal costs. All employees eligible as of the measurement date in accordance with the provisions of the Plan listed in the data provided by the City were included in the valuation. Actuarial Value of Assets: Any assets of the plan will be valued on a market value basis. Amortization of NOL: The unfunded actuarial accrued or net OPEB liability (NOL) is being amortized over 10 years using a level-dollar method. Future bases will be layered in on the same basis. City of Newport Beach Retiree Health Plan June 30, 2019 Actuarial Valuation Section VII. Actuarial Certification end of an amortization period); and While some sensitivity was provided in the report,we did not perform an analysis of the potential ranges of future measurements due to the limited scope of our engagement.  Changes in economic or demographic assumptions;  Increases or decreases expected as part of the natural operation of the methodology used for these measurements (such as the  Changes in plan provisions or applicable law. This report summarizes the actuarial valuation for the City of Newport Beach (the “City”)as of June 30,2019.The purpose of the valuation is to measure the District’s liability for OPEB benefits and to determine an actuarially determined contribution (ADC)for the fiscal periods ending June 30,2021 and June 30,2022.The ADC is a target or recommended contribution to a defined benefit OPEB plan for the applicable period,determined in accordance with the parameters and in conformity with Actuarial Standards of Practice.The valuation results will also serve as the basis for complying with GASB 75 applicable for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2020. To the best of our knowledge,the report presents a fair position of the funded status of the plan.The valuation is based upon our understanding of the plan provisions as summarized within the report.The information presented herein is based on the actuarial assumptions and substantive plan provisions summarized in this report and participant information and asset information furnished to us by the Plan Sponsor.We have reviewed the employee census provided by the Plan Sponsor for reasonableness when compared to the prior information provided but have not audited the information at the source,and therefore do not accept responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of the data on which the information is based.When relevant data may be missing,we may have made assumptions we feel are neutral or conservative to the purpose of the measurement. We are not aware of any significant issues with and have relied on the data provided. The discount rate and other economic assumptions have been selected by the Plan Sponsor.Demographic assumptions have been selected by the Plan Sponsor with the concurrence of Nyhart.In our opinion,the actuarial assumptions are individually reasonable and in combination represent our estimate of anticipated experience of the Plan.All calculations have been made in accordance with generally accepted actuarial principles and practice. Future actuarial measurements may differ significantly from the current measurements presented in this report due to such factors as the following:  Plan experience differing from that anticipated by the economic or demographic assumptions; 20 | Page City of Newport Beach Retiree Health Plan June 30, 2019 Actuarial Valuation Section VII. Actuarial Certification Luis Murillo, ASA, MAAA Randy Gomez, FSA, MAAA Date: Consulting Actuary Consulting Actuary Certified by: December 30, 2019 Neither Nyhart nor any of its employees has any relationship with the plan or its sponsor that could impair or appear to impair the objectivity of this report.Our professional work is in full compliance with the American Academy of Actuaries “Code of Professional Conduct”Precept 7 regarding conflict of interest.The undersigned meet the Qualification Standards of the American Academy of Actuaries to render the actuarial opinion contained herein. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. 21 | Page Retiree Health Benefits June 30, 2019 Actuarial Valuation Section VIII. Glossary 22 | Page GASB 75 defines several unique terms not commonly employed in the funding of pension and retiree health plans. The definitions of the terms used in the GASB actuarial valuations are noted below. 1. Actuarial Assumptions – Assumptions as to the occurrence of future events affecting health care costs, such as: mortality, withdrawal, disablement and retirement; changes in compensation and Government provided health care benefits; rates of investment earnings and asset appreciation or depreciation; procedures used to determine the Actuarial Value of Assets; characteristics of future entrants for Open Group Actuarial Cost Methods; and other relevant items. 2. Actuarial Cost Method – A procedure for determining the Actuarial Present Value of Future Benefits and expenses and for developing an actuarially equivalent allocation of such value to time periods, usually in the form of a Service Cost and a Total OPEB Liability. 3. Actuarially Determined Contribution - A target or recommended contribution to a defined benefit OPEB plan for the reporting period, determined in accordance with the parameters and in conformity with Actuarial Standards of Practice. 4. Actuarial Present Value – The value of an amount or series of amounts payable or receivable at various times, determined as of a given date by the application of a particular set of Actuarial Assumptions. For purposes of this standard, each such amount or series of amounts is: a. adjusted for the probable financial effect of certain intervening events (such as changes in compensation levels, Social Security, marital status, etc.); b. multiplied by the probability of the occurrence of an event (such as survival, death, disability, termination of employment, etc.) on which the payment is conditioned; and c. discounted according to an assumed rate (or rates) of return to reflect the time value of money. 5. Deferred Outflow / (Inflow) of Resources – represents the following items that have not been recognized in the OPEB Expense: a. Differences between expected and actual experience of the OPEB plan b. Changes in assumptions c. Differences between projected and actual earnings in OPEB plan investments (for funded plans only) 6. Explicit Subsidy – The difference between (a) the amounts required to be contributed by the retirees based on the premium rates and (b) actual cash contribution made by the employer. 7. Funded Ratio – The actuarial value of assets expressed as a percentage of the Total OPEB Liability. Retiree Health Benefits June 30, 2019 Actuarial Valuation Section VIII. Glossary 23 | Page 8. Healthcare Cost Trend Rate – The rate of change in the per capita health claims costs over time as a result of factors such as medical inflation, utilization of healthcare services, plan design, and technological developments. 9. Implicit Subsidy – In an experience-rated healthcare plan that includes both active employees and retirees with blended premium rates for all plan members, the difference between (a) the age-adjusted premiums approximating claim costs for retirees in the group (which, because of the effect of age on claim costs, generally will be higher than the blended premium rates for all group members) and (b) the amounts required to be contributed by the retirees. 10. OPEB – Benefits (such as death benefits, life insurance, disability, and long-term care) that are paid in the period after employment and that are provided separately from a pension plan, as well as healthcare benefits paid in the period after employment, regardless of the manner in which they are provided. OPEB does not include termination benefits or termination payments for sick leave. 11. OPEB Expense – Changes in the Net OPEB Liability in the current reporting period, which includes Service Cost, interest cost, changes of benefit terms, expected earnings on OPEB Plan investments, reduction of active employees’ contributions, OPEB plan administrative expenses, and current period recognition of Deferred Outflows / (Inflows) of Resources. 12. Pay-as-you-go – A method of financing a benefit plan under which the contributions to the plan are generally made at about the same time and in about the same amount as benefit payments and expenses becoming due. 13. Per Capita Costs – The current cost of providing postretirement health care benefits for one year at each age from the youngest age to the oldest age at which plan participants are expected to receive benefits under the plan. 14. Present Value of Future Benefits – Total projected benefits include all benefits estimated to be payable to plan members (retirees and beneficiaries, terminated employees entitled to benefits but not yet receiving them, and current active members) as a result of their service through the valuation date and their expected future service. The actuarial present value of total projected benefits as of the valuation date is the present value of the cost to finance benefits payable in the future, discounted to reflect the expected effects of the time value (present value) of money and the probabilities of payment. Expressed another way, it is the amount that would have to be invested on the valuation date so that the amount invested plus investment earnings will provide sufficient assets to pay total projected benefits when due. 15. Real Rate of Return – the rate of return on an investment after adjustment to eliminate inflation. Retiree Health Benefits June 30, 2019 Actuarial Valuation Section VIII. Glossary 24 | Page 16. Select and Ultimate Rates – Actuarial assumptions that contemplate different rates for successive years. Instead of a single assumed rate with respect to, for example, the investment return assumption, the actuary may apply different rates for the early years of a projection and a single rate for all subsequent years. For example, if an actuary applies an assumed investment return of 8% for year 20W0, then 7.5% for 20W1, and 7% for 20W2 and thereafter, then 8% and 7.5% are the select rates, and 7% is the ultimate rate. 17. Service Cost – The portion of the Actuarial Present Value of projected benefit payments that is attributed to a valuation year by the Actuarial Cost Method. 18. Substantive Plan – The terms of an OPEB plan as understood by the employer(s) and plan members. 19. Total OPEB Liability – That portion, as determined by a particular Actuarial Cost Method, of the Actuarial Present Value of Future Benefits, which is attributed to past periods of employee service (or not provided for by the future Service Costs). City of Newport Beach CONTACT Luis Murillo, ASA, MAAA luis.murillo@nyhart.com ADDRESS Nyhart 530 B Street, Ste. 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Actuarial Valuation PHONE Retiree Health Program (619)239-0831 As of June 30, 2019 THIS WAS THE ORIGINAL VERSION RECEIVED PRIOR TO ITEM NO. 5A1 Item No. 5A2 OPEB Actuarial Valuations Additional Materials Received January 16, 2020 Ms. Shannon Espinoza City of Newport Beach One Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re:OPEB Actuarial Valuation Dear Ms. Espinoza: We have enjoyed working on this assignment and are available to answer any questions. Sincerely, NYHART Luis Murillo, ASA, MAAA Consulting Actuary We are presenting our report of the June 30,2019 actuarial valuation conducted on behalf of City of Newport Beach (the “City”)for its retiree health program. The purpose of the valuation is to measure the District’s liability for other postemployment benefits (OPEB)and to determine an actuarially determined contribution (ADC).The ADC is a target or recommended contribution to a defined benefit OPEB plan for the reporting period, determined in accordance with the parameters and in conformity with Actuarial Standards of Practice.The valuation results will also serve as the basis for complying with GASB 75 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2020. A separate GASB 75 accounting report will be provided. The Nyhart Company is an actuarial benefits and compensation consulting firm specializing in group health and retiree health and qualified pension plan valuations. We have set forth the results of our study in this report. Table of Contents Page Section I.Executive Summary 1 Section II.Financial Results 5 Section III.Projected Cash Flows 10 Section IV.Valuation Data 11 Section V.Benefit Plan Provisions 13 Section VI.Actuarial Assumptions and Methods 17 Section VII.Actuarial Certification 20 Section VIII.Glossary 22 City of Newport Beach OPEB Actuarial Valuation Retiree Health Program As of June 30, 2019 City of Newport Beach Retiree Health Plan June 30, 2019 Actuarial Valution Section I. Executive Summary Background The City of Newport Beach City (the “City”)selected Nyhart to perform an updated actuarial valuation of its retiree health program.The purpose of the valuation is to measure the City’s liability for OPEB benefits and to determine an actuarially determined contribution (ADC)for the fiscal periods ending June 30,2021 and June 30,2022.The ADC is a target,or recommended contribution,to a defined benefit OPEB plan for the applicable period,determined in accordance with the parameters and in conformity with Actuarial Standards of Practice.The valuation results will also serve as the basis for complying with GASB 75 applicable for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2021. Effective January 1,2006,the City implemented a Retiree Health Savings program (RHS Plan)for all new full-time employees and for full-time employees whose age plus years of service as of January 1,2006 was less than 46 for public safety employees and 50 for all other employees.A Hybrid Plan was provided for full- time active employees whose age plus years of service as of January 1,2006 was 46 or more for public safety employees and 50 or more for all other employees (unless opting into the RHS Plan).Employees in the Hybrid Plan continue to be eligible to receive the City’s fixed dollar contribution under the prior defined benefit plan at retirement but the contribution is paid into the employee’s RHS account.Employees already retired and eligible for a City contribution at January 1,2006 also continue to receive the City’s fixed dollar contribution under the prior defined benefit plan.Instead of being applied towards medical coverage,the fixed dollar contribution amount less the PEMHCA minimum required employer contribution for those continuing coverage through PEMHCA is made to an RHS account established for the retiree.Part-time employees retiring from the City can elect to continue medical coverage through PEMHCA and receive a City contribution equal to the PEMHCA minimum required employer contribution. At June 30,2019,the District had 553 retired employees receiving or eligible to receive a City contribution for retiree health benefits,plus 52 retirees receiving the PEMHCA minimum required contribution.There were also 292 active employees under the Hybrid Plan eligible to recieve the City's flat dollar contribution in the future if retiring from the City.In addition,there are 123 part time employees who may become eligible to continue coverage through PEMHCA at retirement.The remaining 375 employees participate in the RHS Plan.The city may be reponsible for the PEMHCA minimum required contribution if these employees retire from the City and continue coverage under PEMHCA. The City participates in the CalPERS Health Program for its retiree medical coverage.In general,the premium rates charged to participating employers are the same for each medical plan within each region (or “community”)and are the same for both active and retired employees covered under the same medical plan. An implied rate subsidy can exist when the non-Medicare rates for retirees are the same as for active employees.Since non-Medicare eligible retirees are typically much older than active employees,their actual medical costs are typically higher than for active employees.Both GASB accounting standards and actuarial standards of practices (ASOPs)require that implied rate subsidies be considered in the valuation of medical costs.This valuation includes an estimate of the liability for the implicit rate subsidy. 1 | Page City of Newport Beach Retiree Health Plan June 30, 2019 Actuarial Valuation Section I. Executive Summary Results of the Retiree Health Valuation Changes from Prior Valuation June 30, 2017 Valuation @6.5% $44,614,000 Increase due to passage of time (263,000) Net experience loss 1,747,000 Increase due to liability for new entrants 424,000 Net change due to updated assumptions 114,000 June 30, 2019 Valuation @6.5% $46,636,000 If the amount of the actuarial liability is apportioned into past service, current service,and future service components;the past service component (actuarial accrued liability now referred to as Total OPEB Liability)is $46,635,812 (including $9,544,646 for the implicit rate subsidy),the current service component (normal cost or current year accrual)is $519,496 (including $234,996 for the implicit rate subsidy)and the future service component (not yet accrued liability)is $4,164,786 (including $2,149,625 for the implicit rate subsidy). The valuation reflects updated census,plan,and rate information.In addition,there were a couple of assumption changes as noted in Section VI including updates to the initial healthcare trend rates.A reconciliation of the approximate change in the total (accrued)OPEB liability from the prior valuation is provided below: We have determined that the amount of the present value of the projected City pay-as-you-go contributions (actuarial liability)for OPEB benefits,as of June 30,2019,the valuation date,is $51,320,094,(including $11,929,267 for the implicit rate subsidy).This amount is based on a discount rate of 6.50%.The amount represents the present value of all benefits projected to be paid by the City for current and future retirees.If the City were to have this amount in a fund earning interest at the rate of 6.50%per year,and all other actuarial assumptions were met,the fund would have enough to pay the City’s required contribution for retiree health benefits.This includes benefits for the current retirees as well as the current active employees expected to retire in the future. The valuation does not consider employees not yet hired as of the valuation date. Actuarial Liability is $51,320,094 $46,635,812$519,496 $4,164,786 June 30, 2019 Total (Accrued) OPEB Liability Service Cost Future Service Accruals 2 | Page City of Newport Beach Retiree Health Plan June 30, 2019 Actuarial Valuation Section I. Executive Summary Funding Actuarially Determined Contribution (ADC) Actuarial Basis The actuarially determined contribution (ADC),assuming the City’s funding strategy,is to fund the normal cost (current accrual for benefits being earned)plus an amortization of the unfunded accrued liability-or net OPEB liability-at June 30,2019 equal to $4,108,719 for the fiscal year ending June 30,2021.This includes $2,414,191 for the District’s explicit contribution and $1,694,528 for the implicit rate subsidy.The projected contribution for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2022 is $4,124,923. The estimated pay-as-you-go cost for retiree health benefits for the 2020/2021 fiscal year is approximately $3,714,331 (including $822,563 for the implicit rate subsidy). This amount includes payments for employees expected to retire during the 2020/2021. The City's funding policy is to pre-fund at least the actuarially determined contribution (ADC)through the California Employers’Retiree Benefit Trust (CERBT)under investment strategy 1.The market value of assets in the Trust as of June 30,2019 is $23,185,035.The actuarial value of assets is equal to the market value of assets.The Net (unfunded)OPEB Liability at June 30,2019 is $23,450,777.The Plan’s funded ratio (actuarial value of assets over Total OPEB Liability) is 50%. The actuarial valuation is based on the assumptions and methods outlined in Section VI of the report.To the extent that a single or a combination of assumptions is not met,the future liability may fluctuate significantly from its current measurement.As an example,the healthcare cost increase anticipates that the rate of increase in medical cost will be at moderate levels and decline over several years.Increases higher than assumed would bring larger liabilities and expensing requirements.A 1%increase in the healthcare trend rate for each future year would increase the actuarially determined contribution by 12%.A 1%decrease in the healthcare trend rate for each future year would decrease the actuarially determined contribution by 9%. Another key assumption used in the valuation is the discount (interest)rate which is based on the expected rate of return of plan assets.The valuation is based on a discount rate of 6.50%.A 1%decrease in the discount rate would increase the actuarially determined contribution by 20%. A 1% increase in the discount rate would decrease the actuarially determined contribution by 18%. 3 | Page City of Newport Beach Retiree Health Plan June 30, 2019 Actuarial Valuation Section I. Executive Summary The valuation is based on the census,plan and rate information provided by the District.To the extent that the data provided lacks clarity in interpretation or is missing relevant information,this can result in liabilities different than those presented in the report.Often missing or unclear information is not identified until future valuations. 4 | Page City of Newport Beach Retiree Health Plan June 30, 2019 Actuarial Valuation Section II. Financial Results A. Valuation Results Explicit Implicit Total Actives $8,082,180 $6,716,767 $14,798,947 Retirees 31,308,647 5,212,500 36,521,147 Total $39,390,827 $11,929,267 $51,320,094 Actives $5,782,519 $4,332,146 $10,114,665 Retirees 31,308,647 5,212,500 36,521,147 Total $37,091,166 $9,544,646 $46,635,812 3. Normal Cost $284,500 $234,996 $519,496 No. of Active Employees 790 Average Age 42.5 Average Past Service 12.3 Estimated Payroll $ 72,042,341 No. of Retired Employees 605 Average Age 68.6 Average Retirement Age 55.2 1. Actuarial Liability or Present Value of Benefits 2. Total OPEB Liability (TOL) The table below presents the employer liabilities associated with the City’s retiree health benefits.The actuarial liability is the present value of all City-paid benefits projected to be paid under the program.The total OPEB liability (TOL)-previously referred to as the actuarially accrued liability-reflects the amount attributable to the past service of current employees and retirees.The normal cost reflects the accrual attributable for the current period. 5 | Page City of Newport Beach Retiree Health Plan June 30, 2019 Actuarial Valuation Section II. Financial Results B. Reconciliation of Market Value of Plan Assets 6/30/2018 6/30/2019 1. Beginning Market Value of Assets $19,094,690 $21,696,948 2. Contribution 4,675,193 3,834,916 3. Net Investment Income 1,605,114 1,507,148 4. Benefit Payments (3,641,715) (3,842,531) 5. Administrative Expenses (36,334) (11,446) 6. Ending Market Value of Assets $21,696,948 $23,185,035 7. Estimated Rate of Return 8.2%6.9% C. Development of Actuarial Value of Assets D. Development of Net OPEB Liability (NOL) Explicit Implicit Total 1. Total (Accrued) OPEB Liability $37,091,166 $9,544,646 $46,635,812 2. Actuarial Value of Assets (23,185,035)0 (23,185,035) 3. Net (Unfunded Accrued) OPEB Liability (NOL)$13,906,131 $9,544,646 $23,450,777 4. Funded % Ratio 63%0%50% The actuarial value of assets is based on the market value of assets plus any contribution receivable or benefits payable. The actuarial value of assets at June 30, 2019 is $23,185,035. The reconciliation of Plan Assets for the last two fiscal years is presented below:Fiscal Year Ending The table below presents the development of the net OPEB liability previously referred to as the unfunded actuarial accrued liability. The net OPEB liability is the excess of the TOL over the actuarial value of plan assets. 6 | Page City of Newport Beach Retiree Health Plan June 30, 2019 Actuarial Valuation Section II. Financial Results E. Payment Credited to prior Net OPEB Liability (NOL) bases F. Schedule of Amortization Bases FYE NOL Base Payment Established Remaining Periods Explicit NOL 6/30/2019 Implicit NOL 6/30/2019 Total NOL 6/30/2019 Explicit Amortization Payment Implicit Amortization Payment Total Amortization Payment 2018 $23,414,769 $3,257,104 6/30/2018 9 $14,993,292 $6,686,333 $21,679,625 $2,252,563 $1,004,541 $3,257,104 2019 1,771,152 262,390 6/30/2019 10 (1,087,161)2,858,313 1,771,152 (161,059)423,449 262,390 Total $13,906,131 $9,544,646 $23,450,777 $2,091,504 $1,427,990 $3,519,494 $23,414,769 $3,257,104 $21,679,625 Separate payment schedules for the Net OPEB Liability will be established annually and amortized and paid over a specific period of time on a level- dollar basis.All bases are amortized using assumptions from the current valuation including the current discount rate of 6.5%.Generally,in an actuarial valuation,the separate bases may consist of changes in the Net OPEB liability due to plan changes,actuarial assumption changes, actuarial methodology changes, and/or gains and losses. Payment periods are determinded by the City's funding policy. One of the two components of the actuarially determined contribution (ADC)is a payment to the Net (unfunded)OPEB Liability.The prior valuation created a NOL payment base as of June 30,2018.The base has been updated to reflect expected payments and interest through the valuation date of June 30, 2019. The expected Net OPEB Liability will be used in determining the new amortization base as of June 30, 2019. NOL Bases as of 6/30/2018 Expected Payment 6/30/2019 Expected NOL Bases as of 6/30/2019 7 | Page City of Newport Beach Retiree Health Plan June 30, 2019 Actuarial Valuation Section II. Financial Results G. Actuarially Determined Contribution FY2020/2021 Explicit Implicit Total 1. Normal Cost at End of Fiscal Year $322,687 $266,538 $589,225 2. Amortization of NOL 2,091,504 1,427,990 3,519,494 3. Actuarially Determined Contribution (ADC)$2,414,191 $1,694,528 $4,108,719 4. Estimated Payroll $72,042,341 $72,042,341 $72,042,341 5. ADC as % of Payroll 3.35%2.35%5.70% FY2021/2022 Explicit Implicit Total 1. Normal Cost at End of Fiscal Year $331,561 $273,868 $605,429 2. Amortization of NOL 2,091,504 1,427,990 3,519,494 3. Actuarially Determined Contribution (ADC)$2,423,065 $1,701,858 $4,124,923 4. Estimated Payroll $74,023,505 $74,023,505 $74,023,505 5. ADC as % of Payroll 3.27%2.30%5.57% The table below presents the development of the actuarially determined contribution (ADC)for the fiscal year ending June 30,2021 and for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2022. 8 | Page City of Newport Beach Retiree Health Plan June 30, 2019 Actuarial Valuation Section II. Financial Results G. Sensitivity Analysis: Dollar ($) Increase/ (Decrease) Percentage (%) Increase/ (Decrease) 1% Decrease in Discount Rate - Actuarial Liability $6,388,354 12% - TOL $4,684,384 10% - NOL $4,684,384 20% - ADC $815,444 20% 1% Increase in Discount Rate - Actuarial Liability ($5,186,595)-10% - TOL ($3,975,617)-9% - NOL ($3,975,617)-17% - ADC ($755,330)-18% 1% Increase in Future Healthcare Trend Rates - Actuarial Liability $3,674,672 7% - TOL $2,424,390 5% - NOL $2,424,390 10% - ADC $480,301 12% 1% Decrease in Future Healthcare Trend Rates - Actuarial Liability ($2,678,778)-5% - TOL ($1,748,859)-4% - NOL ($1,748,859)-7% - ADC ($349,845)-9% The impact of a 1%decrease and increase in the discount (interest)rate and the impact of a 1%increase and decrease in future healthcare trend rates on the City’s actuarial liability, TOL, NOL and the ADC is provided below: 9 | Page City of Newport Beach Retiree Health Plan June 30, 2019 Actuarial Valuation Section III. Projected Cash Flows The expected employer cash flows for selected future years are provided in the following table: FY Explicit Implicit City Total FY Explicit Implicit City Total FY Explicit Implicit City Total 2019/20 $ 2,891,768 $ 822,563 $ 3,714,331 2033/34 $ 2,654,438 $ 665,161 $ 3,319,599 2055/56 $ 1,571,437 $ 455,382 $ 2,026,819 2020/21 $ 2,916,368 $ 861,179 $ 3,777,547 2034/35 $ 2,609,245 $ 669,684 $ 3,278,929 2060/61 $ 1,327,298 $ 125,137 $ 1,452,435 2021/22 $ 2,932,837 $ 885,672 $ 3,818,509 2035/36 $ 2,563,420 $ 711,644 $ 3,275,064 2065/66 $ 1,103,223 $ 5,159 $ 1,108,382 2022/23 $ 2,938,531 $ 866,172 $ 3,804,703 2036/37 $ 2,516,030 $ 695,735 $ 3,211,765 2070/71 $ 897,663 $ 0 $ 897,663 2023/24 $ 2,936,406 $ 870,908 $ 3,807,314 2037/38 $ 2,465,045 $ 746,159 $ 3,211,204 2075/76 $ 678,148 $ 0 $ 678,148 2024/25 $ 2,927,765 $ 885,735 $ 3,813,500 2038/39 $ 2,412,089 $ 810,454 $ 3,222,543 2080/81 $ 445,186 $ 0 $ 445,186 2025/26 $ 2,910,430 $ 847,309 $ 3,757,739 2039/40 $ 2,357,191 $ 891,808 $ 3,248,999 2085/86 $ 239,553 $ 0 $ 239,553 2026/27 $ 2,891,004 $ 863,403 $ 3,754,407 2040/41 $ 2,301,869 $ 914,291 $ 3,216,160 2090/91 $ 98,429 $ 0 $ 98,429 2027/28 $ 2,866,060 $ 846,026 $ 3,712,086 2041/42 $ 2,243,383 $ 983,384 $ 3,226,767 2095/96 $ 27,969 $ 0 $ 27,969 2028/29 $ 2,836,572 $ 825,539 $ 3,662,111 2042/43 $ 2,183,415 $ 1,059,469 $ 3,242,884 2100/101 $ 4,737 $ 0 $ 4,737 2029/30 $ 2,805,983 $ 801,345 $ 3,607,328 2043/44 $ 2,123,202 $ 1,053,521 $ 3,176,723 2105/106 $ 355 $ 0 $ 355 2030/31 $ 2,772,118 $ 729,094 $ 3,501,212 2044/45 $ 2,064,203 $ 993,335 $ 3,057,538 2110/111 $ 4 $ 0 $ 4 2031/32 $ 2,734,885 $ 705,777 $ 3,440,662 2045/46 $ 2,005,403 $ 1,008,768 $ 3,014,171 2115/116 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 2032/33 $ 2,697,437 $ 676,639 $ 3,374,076 2050/51 $ 1,790,974 $ 740,688 $ 2,531,662 All Years $ 115,372,193 $ 31,358,535 $ 146,730,728 The valuation process includes the projection of the expected benefits (including the explicit City contribution and the implicit rate subsidy)to be paid by the City under its retiree health benefits program.This expected cash flow takes into account the likelihood of each employee reaching age for eligibility to retire and receive health benefits.The projection is performed by applying the turnover assumption to each active employee for the period between the valuation date and the expected retirement date.Once the employees reach their retirement date,a certain percent are assumed to enter the retiree group each year.Employees already over the latest assumed retirement age as of the valuation date are assumed to retire immediately.The per capita cost as of the valuation date is projected to increase at the applicable healthcare trend rates both before and after the employee's assumed retirement.The projected per capita costs are multiplied by the number of expected future retirees in a given future year to arrive at the cash flow for that year.Also,a certain number of retirees will leave the group each year due to expected deaths or reaching a limit age and this group will cease to be included in the cash flow from that point forward.Because this is a closed-group valuation,the number of retirees dying each year will eventually exceed the number of new retirees,and the size of the cash flow will begin to decrease and eventually go to zero. $0.0 $5.0 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040 2042 2044 2046 2048Millions Implicit Explicit 10 | Page Retiree Health Plan GASB 75 Report Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2020 (Measured at June 30, 2019) Valuation Data 11 | Page The valuation was based on the census furnished to us by the City. A reconciliation and summary data statistics as of the Valuation Date are provided in the following tables: Age Distribution of Eligible Retired Participants & Beneficiaries Age Miscellaneous Safety Total* MRC Only Waives Grand Total <50 0 0 0 6 12 18 50-54 3 11 14 12 15 41 55-59 29 32 61 11 11 83 60-64 56 50 106 9 15 130 65-69 62 65 127 6 14 147 70-74 64 46 110 4 15 129 75-79 38 30 68 3 8 79 80-84 32 15 47 1 14 62 85+ 15 5 20 0 21 41 Total: 299 254 553 52 125 730 Average Age: 70.1 67.6 69.0 59.3 67.7 68.1 Average Retirement Age: 58.1 52.0 55.3 54.2 50.7 54.4 * Note: Currently receiving the $400 or $450 per month contribution. Age/Service Distribution of All Active Benefit Eligible Employees Age/Service 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 Total Hybrid Plan RHS Plan Part Time 20-24 26 26 0 13 13 25-29 77 14 3 94 0 61 33 30-34 42 34 28 2 106 0 85 21 35-39 22 24 52 25 3 126 37 80 9 40-44 23 9 31 43 7 113 52 54 7 45-49 11 9 22 38 18 6 2 106 66 33 7 50-54 15 9 14 20 16 20 15 3 0 112 70 29 13 55-59 5 1 7 11 12 11 11 2 0 60 45 9 6 60-64 2 3 6 3 4 4 5 1 0 28 17 7 4 65-69 4 0 4 2 2 1 0 0 0 13 3 4 6 70+ 2 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 6 2 0 4 Total: 229 104 167 145 62 42 35 6 0 790 292 375 123 Average Age: 42.1 48.9 37.8 38.7 Average Service: 12.3 21.0 7.3 7.2 Retiree Health Plan GASB 75 Report Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2020 (Measured at June 30, 2019) Valuation Data 12 | Page Age/Service Distribution of Benefit Eligible Miscellaneous Employees Age/Service 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 Total Hybrid Plan RHS Plan Part Time 20-24 19 19 0 6 13 25-29 56 8 1 65 0 35 30 30-34 27 12 14 1 54 0 34 20 35-39 16 12 31 12 71 17 46 8 40-44 22 4 14 21 4 65 19 39 7 45-49 11 8 7 25 10 3 64 35 23 6 50-54 15 8 13 13 12 14 10 1 86 46 27 13 55-59 5 1 7 11 9 8 10 2 53 39 8 6 60-64 2 2 6 3 4 4 4 1 26 16 6 4 65-69 4 0 4 2 2 1 0 0 0 13 3 4 6 70+ 2 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 6 2 0 4 Total: 179 56 97 89 41 30 26 4 0 522 177 228 117 Average Age 43.5 51.1 39.9 39.0 Average Service 12.0 21.7 7.13 6.9 Age/Service Distribution of Benefit Eligible Safety Employees Age/Service 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 Total Hybrid Plan RHS Plan Part Time 20-24 7 7 0 7 0 25-29 21 6 2 29 0 26 3 30-34 15 22 14 1 52 0 51 1 35-39 6 12 21 13 3 55 20 34 1 40-44 1 5 17 22 3 48 33 15 1 45-49 0 1 15 13 8 3 2 42 31 10 0 50-54 0 1 1 7 4 6 5 2 26 24 2 0 55-59 0 0 0 0 3 3 1 0 7 6 1 0 60-64 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 1 0 65-69 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total: 50 48 70 56 21 12 9 2 0 268 115 147 6 Average Age 39.3 45.5 34.6 34.7 Average Service 13.0 19.9 7.5 14.4 Retiree Health Plan GASB 75 Report Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2020 (Measured at June 30, 2019) Benefit Plan Provisions 13 | Page This study analyzes the post-retirement health benefits provided by the City. Currently, eligible active employees are offered a choice of medical (including prescription drug coverage) plans through the CalPERS Health Program under the Public Employees’ Medical and Hospital Care Act (PEMHCA). The City offers the same medical plans to eligible retirees except once a retiree is eligible for Medicare, the retiree must join a Medicare HMO or Supplement Plan with Medicare being the primary payer. Prior to January 1, 2006, the City sponsored a defined benefit healthcare plan which provided a fixed dollar contribution towards the cost of medical coverage for eligible employees continuing medical coverage through PEMHCA at retirement. The City’s contribution varied by employee group (up to a maximum of $450 per month for Police employees and $400 for all other employees). Effective January 1, 2006, the City implemented a Retiree Health Savings program (RHS) for all new full-time employees (Category 1) and for full-time employees whose age plus service as of January 1, 2006 was less than 46 for public safety employees and 50 for all other employees (Category 2). Full-time active employees whose age plus service as of January 1, 2006 was 46 or more for public safety employees and 50 or more for all other employees (Category 3) continued to be eligible to receive the City’s fixed dollar contribution under the prior defined benefit plan at retirement but the contribution is paid into the employee’s RHS account. Employees already retired and eligible for a City contribution at January 1, 2006 (Category 4) continued to receive the City’s contribution under the prior defined benefit plan but instead of being applied towards medical coverage, the fixed dollar contribution amount less the minimum required employer PEMHCA contribution for those continuing coverage through PEMHCA is made to an RHS account established for the retiree. Employees in Category 3 could make a one-time election to be treated similarly to Category 2 employee with those not electing remaining in a Hybrid Plan (includes both the City’s fixed dollar contribution but also some components of the RHS Plan). A description of the funding components is outlined in the chart on the following page. The RHS is a Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA) sponsored by the City which reimburses a participant for post-employment medical (PEMHCA plan) dental, vision, long-term care, miscellaneous medical expenses, and the PEMHCA minimum. In general, the RHS is a defined contribution program sponsored by the City with several funding components as outlined in the table on the following page. Any balance in the employee’s RHS account after the death of the employee and eligible spouse and dependents will be forfeited. Part-time employees can continue medical coverage through PEMHCA and receive the PEMHCA minimum required contribution from the City which is scheduled to increase in the future based on the medical portion of CPI. A history of the increases in past years and current amounts are as follows: Calendar Year Minimum Required Employer Contribution 2012 $112.00 2013 $115.00 2014 $119.00 2015 $122.00 2016 $125.00 2017 $128.00 2018 $133.00 2019 $136.00 2020 2021+ $139.00 Adjusted Annually to reflect Medical Portion of CPI Retiree Health Plan GASB 75 Report Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2020 (Measured at June 30, 2019) Benefit Plan Provisions 14 | Page In general, the RHS is a defined contribution program sponsored by the City with the following funding components: Category 1 Category 2 Category 3* Category 4 Part A – Pre- Retirement Employee Contributions o 1% of base pay mandatory contribution o effective immediately upon employment o 1% of base pay mandatory contribution o effective January 1, 2006 o 1% of base pay mandatory contribution o effective January 1, 2006 None Part B – Pre- Retirement City Contributions: o City contributes $2.50 per month for each year of age plus service during employment o effective upon 5 years of vesting service; immediate vesting for industrial disability o retroactively deposited; biweekly thereafter o City contributes $2.50 per month for each year of age plus service during employment o effective upon 5 years of vesting service; immediate vesting for industrial disability o retroactively deposited; biweekly thereafter None None Part C – Leave Conversion: o mandatory transfer of a portion of accumulated leave during any leave buyout o amount of leave conversion varies by bargaining unit & subject to negotiation o not payable in cash o mandatory transfer of a portion of accumulated leave during any leave buyout o amount of leave conversion varies by bargaining unit & subject to negotiation o not payable in cash o mandatory transfer of a portion of accumulated leave during any leave buyout o amount of leave conversion varies by bargaining unit & subject to negotiation o not payable in cash Part D – Conversion Contribution: None o For fully converted employees who retire from the plan only o City will make a one-time contribution of $100 per month the employee contributed to the plan prior to January 1, 2006 with a cap of $18,000 o City will make a one-time contribution of $75 per month the employee contributed to the plan January 1, 2006 with a cap of $13,500 Part E – Post Retirement Contribution o City will provide the PEMHCA minimum contribution when a retiree’s RHS account value has been exhausted o City will provide the PEMHCA minimum contribution when a retiree’s RHS account value has been exhausted o City will contribute $400 per month ($450 for Police employees retiring prior to January 1, 2006) o City will contribute $400 per month ($450 for Police employees) to retiree’s or surviving spouse’s RHS account Part F – Other Pre- Retirement Employee Contributions: None None o Active full-time employees are required to make a contribution of $100 per month None *Employees making a one-time election into the RHS Plan are treated as Category 2 employees. Retiree Health Plan GASB 75 Report Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2020 (Measured at June 30, 2019) Benefit Plan Provisions 15 | Page Premium Rates The City participates in the CalPERS Health Program, a community-rated program, for medical coverage. The tables below summarize the calendar 2017 and 2018 monthly medical premiums for the primary medical plans in which the retirees are enrolled. 2019 Other So. Cal. Region Kaiser BS HMO PERS Care PERS Choice PERS Select Retiree Only $ 628.63 $ 760.04 $ 907.29 $ 721.11 $ 462.71 Retiree Plus Spouse $1,257.26 $1,520.08 $1,814.58 $1,442.22 $ 925.42 Retiree Plus Family $1,634.44 $1,976.10 $2,358.95 $1,874.89 $1,203.05 Retiree Only- Medicare $ 323.74 N/A $ 394.83 $ 360.41 $ 360.41 Retiree Plus Spouse – Medicare $ 647.48 N/A $ 789.66 $ 720.82 $ 720.82 2019 Other So. Cal. Region (Continued) Sharp HMO UHC HMO Anthem HMO Select Anthem HMO Traditional Health Net Salud Health Net Smart Care Retiree Only $ 593.66 $ 646.65 $ 625.07 $ 830.89 $ 427.81 $ 642.71 Retiree Plus Spouse $1,187.32 $1,293.30 $1,250.14 $1,661.78 $ 855.62 $1,285.42 Retiree Plus Family $1,543.52 $1,681.29 $1,625.18 $2,160.31 $1,112.31 $1,671.05 Retiree Only- Medicare N/A $ 299.37 N/A $ 357.44 N/A N/A Retiree Plus Spouse – Medicare N/A $ 598.74 N/A $ 714.88 N/A N/A 2020 Region 2 Kaiser BS HMO PERS Care PERS Choice PERS Select Retiree Only $ 645.24 $ 909.87 $ 986.66 $ 736.28 $ 451.54 Retiree Plus Spouse $1,290.48 $1,819.74 $1,973.32 $1,472.56 $ 903.08 Retiree Plus Family $1,677.62 $2,365.66 $2,565.32 $1,914.33 $1,174.00 Retiree Only- Medicare $ 339.43 N/A $ 384.78 $ 351.39 $ 351.39 Retiree Plus Spouse – Medicare $ 678.86 N/A $ 769.56 $ 702.78 $ 702.78 Retiree Health Plan GASB 75 Report Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2020 (Measured at June 30, 2019) Benefit Plan Provisions 16 | Page 2020 Region 2 (Continued) Sharp UHC HMO Anthem HMO Select Anthem HMO Traditional Health Net Smart Care Health Net Salud Retiree Only $ 606.02 $ 671.60 $ 654.04 $ 934.95 $ 719.26 $ 435.14 Retiree Plus Spouse $1,212.04 $1,343.20 $1,308.08 $1,869.90 $1,438.52 $ 870.28 Retiree Plus Family $1,575.65 $1,746.16 $1,700.50 $2,430.87 $1,870.08 $1,131.36 Retiree Only- Medicare N/A $ 327.03 $ 388.15 $ 388.15 N/A N/A Retiree Plus Spouse – Medicare N/A $ 654.06 $ 766.30 $ 766.30 N/A N/A Retiree Health Plan GASB 75 Report Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2020 (Measured at June 30, 2019) Actuarial Assumptions and Methods 17 | Page The liabilities set forth in this report are based on the actuarial assumptions described in this section. Fiscal Year: July 1st to June 30th Valuation Date: June 30, 2019 Funding Policy: The actuarially determined contribution (ADC) assuming the City’s funding strategy is to fund the normal cost (current accrual for benefits being earned) plus an amortization of the net (unfunded accrued) OPEB liability over 10 years. Expected Rate of Return: 6.5% per annum. This discount rate assumes the City continues to fully fund for its retiree health benefits through the California Employers’ Retiree Benefit Trust (CERBT) under its investment allocation strategy 1. The rate reflects the CERBT published median interest rate for strategy 1 of 7.28% with an additional margin for adverse deviation. Discount Rate: 6.5% per annum. Inflation: 2.75% per annum Merit Increases: Merit increases from the most recent CalPERS pension plan experiences study. The benefits are not payroll related but each individual’s projected cost is allocated over their lifetime as a level-percentage of pay. Wage Inflation: 3.0% per annum, in aggregate. Salary Increases: For cost method purposes the merit increases from the CalPERS pension plan are used. Pre-retirement Turnover: According to the termination rates under the 2017 experience study for the CalPERS pension plan [Updated from the 2014 CALPERS experience study rates] Mortality: According to the mortality rates under the 2017 experience study for the CalPERS pension plan. [Updated from the 2014 CALPERS experience study rates] Disability Rates: According to the disability rates under the 2017 experience study for the CalPERS pension plan. [Updated from the 2014 CALPERS experience study rates] Retiree Health Plan GASB 75 Report Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2020 (Measured at June 30, 2019) Actuarial Assumptions and Methods 18 | Page Retirement Rates: According to the retirement rates under the 2017 experience study for the CalPERS pension plan: Miscellaneous Employees Tier 1 – 2.5%@ Age 55 Tier 2 – 2.0%@ Age 60 Tier 3 – 2.0%@ Age 62 Fire Employees Tier 1 – 3.0%@ Age 50 Tier 2 – 2.0%@ Age 50 Tier 3 – 2.7%@ Age 57 Safety Employees Tier 1 – 3.0%@ Age 50 Tier 2 – 3.0%@ Age 55 Tier 3 – 2.7%@ Age 57 [Updated from the 2014 CALPERS experience study rates] Participation Rates: 100% of eligible full-time employees under the Hybrid Plan are assumed to participate at retirement with 65% assumed to continue coverage through PEMHCA. 18% of eligible part-time employees are assumed to elect to continue coverage under PEMHCA at retirement. For employees in the RHS Plan, the City is responsible for the PEMHCA minimum required contribution but may be eligible for reimbursement by the retiree from their individual RHS account. For purposes of the valuation, 35% of employees in the RHS Plan are assumed to continue coverage under PEMHCA at retirement with the City paying the full PEMHCA minimum required contribution. Spouse Coverage: 60% of future retirees are assumed to cover their spouse. Male spouses are assumed to be 3 years older than female spouses. Actual spouse coverage and spouse ages are used for current retirees. Waived Retiree Re-election: 20% of the current retiree population currently under 65 re-elect PEMHCA plan at age 65; 0% of those currently over age 65 re-elect. Claim Cost Development: The valuation claim costs are based on the premiums paid for medical insurance coverage. The City participates in CalPERS, a community rated plan. An implicit rate subsidy can exist when the non-Medicare rates for retirees are the same as for active employees. Since non-Medicare eligible retirees are typically much older than active employees, their actual medical costs are typically higher than for active employees. The current valuation contains an estimate of the implicit rate subsidy. Retiree Health Plan GASB 75 Report Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2020 (Measured at June 30, 2019) Actuarial Assumptions and Methods 19 | Page Medical Trend Rates: Medical costs are adjusted in future years by the following trends: FYE Trend 2020 6.5% 2021 6.0% 2022 5.5% 2023+ 5.0% [The prior valuation assumed 0.5% lower initial trend rates for HMO.] Minimum Contribution: The PEMHCA minimum required contribution is assumed to increase 4.0% per year. Fixed Dollar Contribution: Assumed to remain constant in future years. Medicare Participation: Assume 100% participation. Actuarial Cost Method: The actuarial cost method used to determine the allocation of the retiree health actuarial liability to the past (accrued), current and future periods is the Entry Age Normal (EAN) cost method. The EAN cost method is a projected benefit cost method which means the “cost” is based on the projected benefit expected to be paid at retirement. The EAN normal cost equals the level annual amount of contribution from the employee’s date of hire (entry date) to their retirement date that is sufficient to fund the projected benefit. As required by GASB 75, the normal cost is calculated to remain level as a percentage of pay. The EAN actuarial accrued liability equals the present value of all future benefits for retired and current employees and their beneficiaries less the portion expected to be funded by future normal costs. All employees eligible as of the measurement date in accordance with the provisions of the Plan listed in the data provided by the City were included in the valuation. Actuarial Value of Assets: Any assets of the plan will be valued on a market value basis. Amortization of NOL: The unfunded actuarial accrued or net OPEB liability (NOL) is being amortized over 10 years using a level-dollar method. Future bases will be layered in on the same basis. City of Newport Beach Retiree Health Plan June 30, 2019 Actuarial Valuation Section VII. Actuarial Certification end of an amortization period); and While some sensitivity was provided in the report,we did not perform an analysis of the potential ranges of future measurements due to the limited scope of our engagement.  Changes in economic or demographic assumptions;  Increases or decreases expected as part of the natural operation of the methodology used for these measurements (such as the  Changes in plan provisions or applicable law. This report summarizes the actuarial valuation for the City of Newport Beach (the “City”)as of June 30,2019.The purpose of the valuation is to measure the District’s liability for OPEB benefits and to determine an actuarially determined contribution (ADC)for the fiscal periods ending June 30,2021 and June 30,2022.The ADC is a target or recommended contribution to a defined benefit OPEB plan for the applicable period,determined in accordance with the parameters and in conformity with Actuarial Standards of Practice.The valuation results will also serve as the basis for complying with GASB 75 applicable for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2020. To the best of our knowledge,the report presents a fair position of the funded status of the plan.The valuation is based upon our understanding of the plan provisions as summarized within the report.The information presented herein is based on the actuarial assumptions and substantive plan provisions summarized in this report and participant information and asset information furnished to us by the Plan Sponsor.We have reviewed the employee census provided by the Plan Sponsor for reasonableness when compared to the prior information provided but have not audited the information at the source,and therefore do not accept responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of the data on which the information is based.When relevant data may be missing,we may have made assumptions we feel are neutral or conservative to the purpose of the measurement. We are not aware of any significant issues with and have relied on the data provided. The discount rate and other economic assumptions have been selected by the Plan Sponsor.Demographic assumptions have been selected by the Plan Sponsor with the concurrence of Nyhart.In our opinion,the actuarial assumptions are individually reasonable and in combination represent our estimate of anticipated experience of the Plan.All calculations have been made in accordance with generally accepted actuarial principles and practice. Future actuarial measurements may differ significantly from the current measurements presented in this report due to such factors as the following:  Plan experience differing from that anticipated by the economic or demographic assumptions; 20 | Page City of Newport Beach Retiree Health Plan June 30, 2019 Actuarial Valuation Section VII. Actuarial Certification Luis Murillo, ASA, MAAA Randy Gomez, FSA, MAAA Date: Consulting Actuary Consulting Actuary Certified by: December 30, 2019 Neither Nyhart nor any of its employees has any relationship with the plan or its sponsor that could impair or appear to impair the objectivity of this report.Our professional work is in full compliance with the American Academy of Actuaries “Code of Professional Conduct”Precept 7 regarding conflict of interest.The undersigned meet the Qualification Standards of the American Academy of Actuaries to render the actuarial opinion contained herein. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. 21 | Page Retiree Health Benefits June 30, 2019 Actuarial Valuation Section VIII. Glossary 22 | Page GASB 75 defines several unique terms not commonly employed in the funding of pension and retiree health plans. The definitions of the terms used in the GASB actuarial valuations are noted below. 1. Actuarial Assumptions – Assumptions as to the occurrence of future events affecting health care costs, such as: mortality, withdrawal, disablement and retirement; changes in compensation and Government provided health care benefits; rates of investment earnings and asset appreciation or depreciation; procedures used to determine the Actuarial Value of Assets; characteristics of future entrants for Open Group Actuarial Cost Methods; and other relevant items. 2. Actuarial Cost Method – A procedure for determining the Actuarial Present Value of Future Benefits and expenses and for developing an actuarially equivalent allocation of such value to time periods, usually in the form of a Service Cost and a Total OPEB Liability. 3. Actuarially Determined Contribution - A target or recommended contribution to a defined benefit OPEB plan for the reporting period, determined in accordance with the parameters and in conformity with Actuarial Standards of Practice. 4. Actuarial Present Value – The value of an amount or series of amounts payable or receivable at various times, determined as of a given date by the application of a particular set of Actuarial Assumptions. For purposes of this standard, each such amount or series of amounts is: a. adjusted for the probable financial effect of certain intervening events (such as changes in compensation levels, Social Security, marital status, etc.); b. multiplied by the probability of the occurrence of an event (such as survival, death, disability, termination of employment, etc.) on which the payment is conditioned; and c. discounted according to an assumed rate (or rates) of return to reflect the time value of money. 5. Deferred Outflow / (Inflow) of Resources – represents the following items that have not been recognized in the OPEB Expense: a. Differences between expected and actual experience of the OPEB plan b. Changes in assumptions c. Differences between projected and actual earnings in OPEB plan investments (for funded plans only) 6. Explicit Subsidy – The difference between (a) the amounts required to be contributed by the retirees based on the premium rates and (b) actual cash contribution made by the employer. 7. Funded Ratio – The actuarial value of assets expressed as a percentage of the Total OPEB Liability. Retiree Health Benefits June 30, 2019 Actuarial Valuation Section VIII. Glossary 23 | Page 8. Healthcare Cost Trend Rate – The rate of change in the per capita health claims costs over time as a result of factors such as medical inflation, utilization of healthcare services, plan design, and technological developments. 9. Implicit Subsidy – In an experience-rated healthcare plan that includes both active employees and retirees with blended premium rates for all plan members, the difference between (a) the age-adjusted premiums approximating claim costs for retirees in the group (which, because of the effect of age on claim costs, generally will be higher than the blended premium rates for all group members) and (b) the amounts required to be contributed by the retirees. 10. OPEB – Benefits (such as death benefits, life insurance, disability, and long-term care) that are paid in the period after employment and that are provided separately from a pension plan, as well as healthcare benefits paid in the period after employment, regardless of the manner in which they are provided. OPEB does not include termination benefits or termination payments for sick leave. 11. OPEB Expense – Changes in the Net OPEB Liability in the current reporting period, which includes Service Cost, interest cost, changes of benefit terms, expected earnings on OPEB Plan investments, reduction of active employees’ contributions, OPEB plan administrative expenses, and current period recognition of Deferred Outflows / (Inflows) of Resources. 12. Pay-as-you-go – A method of financing a benefit plan under which the contributions to the plan are generally made at about the same time and in about the same amount as benefit payments and expenses becoming due. 13. Per Capita Costs – The current cost of providing postretirement health care benefits for one year at each age from the youngest age to the oldest age at which plan participants are expected to receive benefits under the plan. 14. Present Value of Future Benefits – Total projected benefits include all benefits estimated to be payable to plan members (retirees and beneficiaries, terminated employees entitled to benefits but not yet receiving them, and current active members) as a result of their service through the valuation date and their expected future service. The actuarial present value of total projected benefits as of the valuation date is the present value of the cost to finance benefits payable in the future, discounted to reflect the expected effects of the time value (present value) of money and the probabilities of payment. Expressed another way, it is the amount that would have to be invested on the valuation date so that the amount invested plus investment earnings will provide sufficient assets to pay total projected benefits when due. 15. Real Rate of Return – the rate of return on an investment after adjustment to eliminate inflation. Retiree Health Benefits June 30, 2019 Actuarial Valuation Section VIII. Glossary 24 | Page 16. Select and Ultimate Rates – Actuarial assumptions that contemplate different rates for successive years. Instead of a single assumed rate with respect to, for example, the investment return assumption, the actuary may apply different rates for the early years of a projection and a single rate for all subsequent years. For example, if an actuary applies an assumed investment return of 8% for year 20W0, then 7.5% for 20W1, and 7% for 20W2 and thereafter, then 8% and 7.5% are the select rates, and 7% is the ultimate rate. 17. Service Cost – The portion of the Actuarial Present Value of projected benefit payments that is attributed to a valuation year by the Actuarial Cost Method. 18. Substantive Plan – The terms of an OPEB plan as understood by the employer(s) and plan members. 19. Total OPEB Liability – That portion, as determined by a particular Actuarial Cost Method, of the Actuarial Present Value of Future Benefits, which is attributed to past periods of employee service (or not provided for by the future Service Costs). CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FINANCE COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 5C January 16, 2020 TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE FROM: Finance Department Antonio Velasco, Revenue Auditor 949-644-3143, avelasco@newportbeachca.gov SUBJECT: TOT CHARTER TAX AND OTHER AUDITS UPDATE SUMMARY: Staff will update the committee on the Charter Passenger Tax and Transient Occupancy Tax Audits performed to date. The preliminary findings to date are summarized as follows: Audit Type Selected for Audit Audited to Date Entities with Findings Prelim. Findings Charter Passenger Tax 9 9 2 $15,000 Hotels 21 17 9 $170,000 Short-Term Lodging Agents 17 8 6 $30,000 Short-Term Lodging Owner/Operators 2 2 2 $10,000 Total 49 36 19 $225,000 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file. DISCUSSION: The City has contracted with the audit firms Hinderliter, De Llamas & Associates; Davis Farr, LLP; and Gruber and Associates to conduct several tax compliance audits of hotels and charter boats. Nine charter boat companies have been selected for Charter TOT Charter Tax and Other Audits Update January 16, 2020 Page 2 Passenger Tax Audit and 40 hotels, Short-Term Lodging Agents and Short-Term Owner/Operators for Transient Occupancy Tax Audits. Charter Passenger Tax Audits Consulting and audit firm Hinderliter, de Llamas & Associates (HdL) was engaged to conduct nine Charter Passenger Tax Audits on behalf of the City for an audit period of three years. HdL completed the audits in late December 2019 and submitted them to the City for final review. Of the nine audits, two have resulted in preliminary findings that taxes are owed to the City. In addition to taxes, the companies may also be subject to penalties and interest when finalized. Two companies were found to be in compliance because they are exempted from taxation based on Newport Beach Municipal Code section 3.34.025, which exempts sport fishing and whale watching. The remaining audited companies were found to be in compliance for the audit period. The Charter Audits resulted in preliminary findings over $15,000 in unreported taxes. Transient Occupancy Tax Audits The City of Newport Beach entered into separate agreements with Davis Farr and Gruber & Associates (Gruber) to conduct Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) audits on behalf of the City. The audits consisted of 21 hotels, 17 Short-Term Lodging Agents and two Short-Term Lodging Owner/Operators. Davis Farr was assigned to audit 21 companies, while Gruber and Associates was assigned to audit 19 companies. Hotels Nine hotels were found to have some compliance findings largely due to not properly reporting taxable fees for cancellations and non-transient exemptions. In addition to the tax owed to the City, penalties and interest will be added when finalized. In summary, of the 17 hotels audited thus far, eight hotels were found to be in full-compliance with the municipal code and nine had some compliance findings for the audit period. Gruber has scheduled the remaining five audits and are expected to complete them by the end of January 2020. The hotel audits have resulted in preliminary findings of over $170,000 in under reported taxes. Short-Term Lodging Agents Seventeen Short-Term Lodging Agents were selected for TOT audits and Davis Farr has completed eight of them. Six of the audits resulted in taxes owed to the City for failing to report taxable cleaning fees. In addition to taxes, the companies will also be subject to penalties and interest when finalized. Gruber has scheduled the remaining nine audits and are expected to complete them by the end of January 2020. The Short-Term Lodging Agent audits have resulted in over $30,000 in unreported taxes. Short-Term Lodging Owner/Operators Davis Farr audited two Owner/Operators; both audits resulted in taxes owed to the City based on failing to report taxable cleaning fees. The Short-Term Lodging Owner/Operator audits have TOT Charter Tax and Other Audits Update January 16, 2020 Page 3 resulted in preliminary findings over $10,000 in unreported taxes. In addition to taxes, the companies will also be subject to penalties and interest when finalized. Findings The audit findings help the audited companies comply with the Municipal Codes. With many companies changing management operators or ownership, some organizations are unaware of all the Municipal Codes that their business must follow. Not following the code may result in taxes, penalties and interest owed to the City. By conducting an audit, the companies are provided guidance on how to report and stay in compliance. Prepared and Submitted by: /s/ Antonio Velasco _____________________________ Antonio Velasco Revenue Auditor CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FINANCE COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 5D January 16, 2020 TO: HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE FROM: Finance Department Dan Matusiewicz, Finance Director 949-644-3123 or danm@newportbeachca.gov SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR QUARTER ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2019 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this memorandum is to report on the budget amendments for the second quarter of FY 2019-20. All budget amendments are in compliance with City Council Policy F-3, Budget Adoption and Administration. DISCUSSION City Council Policy F-3, Budget Adoption and Administration, identifies how appropriations can be transferred, increased or reduced. The Finance Committee reviews a quarterly report of City Council and City Manager budget amendments including their effect on fund balance. Please find the list of budget amendments included as Attachment A. Prepared by: Submitted by: /s/ Jacqueline Lizarraga /s/ Dan Matusiewicz Jacqueline Lizarraga Dan Matusiewicz Fiscal Specialist Finance Director Attachment: A.Budget Amendments Fiscal Year 2019-20 Quarter Ending December 31, 2019. ATTACHMENT A BUDGET AMENDMENTS FISCAL YEAR 2019-20 QUARTER ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2019 BA #Date Amendment Type Fund Revenues Expenditures Net Effect on Fund Balance Increase/(Decrease)Department Explanation 017-CC 10/8/2019 City Council General Fund $155,000.00 $155,000.00 $0.00 Library To increase revenue estimates and expenditure appropriations to record a donation from the Newport Beach Library Foundation. Revenues will be received in four quarterly donations totaling the full allocated amount. 020-CM 10/18/2019 City Manager General Fund $2,970.00 $2,970.00 $0.00 Police To increase revenues in 01035352-431465 and expenditure appropriations in 01035353-861007 by the same amount of $2,970.00 for the State of CA - BSCC Mental Health Training Grant. 021-CC 11/19/2019 City Council Building Excise Tax Fund $100,000.00 $220,000.00 -$110,000.00 Public Works To increase expenditure appropriations from the Building Excise Tax Fund unappropriated fund balance to be used towards the award of the Central Library Lecture Hall Design contract. 022-CC 11/19/2019 City Council Neighborhood Enhancment Fund $64,739.00 -$64,739.00 Public Works To increase expenditure appropriations from unappropriated Neighborhood Enhancement funds for the West Coast Highway Median Landscaping Phase 2. 023-CC 12/10/2019 City Council General Fund $18,000.00 $18,000.00 $0.00 Library To increase revenue estimates and expenditure appropriations and accept funding from the California State Library for Literacy Services (CLLS) annual grant program. 024-CM 12/16/2019 City Manager Contributions Fund $3,367.50 $3,367.50 $0.00 Public Works To increase revenue estimates and expenditure appropriations towards the MacArthur Blvd & University Dr Pavement rehab. The IRWD has increased its contribution by $3,367.50 (Contract 7183- 2) for three domestic water valves. City of Newport Beach Budget Amendments Fiscal Year 2019-20 Quarter Ending December 31, 2019 I:\Users\FIN\Shared\Admin\Finance Committee\WORK PLAN\2020\2020 FC Workplan.xlsx 1 1/10/20 Scheduled Date Agenda Title Agenda Description Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Council Study Session - Economic Update by Beacon Economics CANCELLED Dr. Chris Thornberg to provide Council a brief regional economic update. Thursday, January 16, 2020 OPEB Actuarial Valuation Review OPEB Actuarial Valuation Internal Audit Program Update Staff will provide an oral update of plans to implement a robust internal audit and performance audit program. TOT, Charter Tax and Other Audits Update Staff will update the committee on the TOT, charter tax and other audit findings performed to date. Budget Amendments for Quarter Ending December 31, 2019 Staff will report on the budget amendments from the prior quarter. Work Plan Review Staff and Finance Committee to review the proposed work plan and adjust as necessary. Saturday, January 25, 2020 Special Council Meeting - Council Planning Session (Tentative)Staff will present status and funding of major programs planned for the calendar year. Finance Committee Attendance Optional Thursday, February 13, 2020 Review of Public Works Department Budget Public Works will present the contours of its FY19-20 budget to inform the Committee's understanding of its operation in advance of the FY20-21 budget preparation. Facilities Financial Plan (FFP) and Harbor & Beaches Master Plan Updates Staff will present a draft of Facilities and Harbors/Beaches Financial Plans reviewing the timing, means of financing, and fiscal impacts associated with funding Council prioritized capital projects. Review allocation of TOT Revenue to Visit Newport Beach The committee will review the historical revenue allocation of TOT revenue to Visit Newport Beach Fee Study Update Staff will present the Master Fee Schedule to the Finance Committee and subsequently will present to the City Council. Reserve Status Update and Review Council Reserve Policy (F-2) Staff will provide an update of reserves balances relative to target balances and discuss adjustments as necessary. Staff will also provide recommended adjustments to Council Reserve Policy (F-2). Long Range Fiscal Forecast Staff will provide an update to the latest version of the LRFF. Tuesday, March 10, 2020 Council Study Session - Capital Improvement Plan Early Look Finance Committee Attendance Optional Thursday, March 12, 2020 Financial Statement Audit Results & Related Communication Review of Police Department Budget The Police Department will present the contours of its FY19-20 budget to inform the Committee's understanding of its operation in advance of the FY20- 21 budget preparation. Development Agreement Fees Review development agreement fees and how they are used to fund City programs. Review of Policy F-9, City Vehicle/Equipment Replacement Guidelines Committee will review and comment and current policy provisions. Discuss Revenue Assumptions Staff will provide of an overview of revenue assumptions for the FY 2020-21 Proposed Budget. Thursday, April 16, 2020 Proposed FY 2020-21 Budget Overview Staff will provide an overview of the Proposed FY 2020-21 Operating Budget. City of Newport Beach Finance Committee Work Plan 2020 January February March April I:\Users\FIN\Shared\Admin\Finance Committee\WORK PLAN\2020\2020 FC Workplan.xlsx 2 1/10/20 Scheduled Date Agenda Title Agenda Description City of Newport Beach Finance Committee Work Plan 2020 Budget Amendments for Quarter Ending March 31, 2020 Staff will report on the budget amendments for the prior quarter. Thursday, April 30, 2020 Proposed FY 2020-21 Budget Overview (Tentative - If Needed)Tentative meeting (if needed) to answer follow-up questions concerning the FY 2020-21 budget. Tuesday, May 12, 2020 Joint Council/Finance Committee Study Session - 1st Council Review of Proposed Budget Review Proposed Budget. Thursday, May 14, 2020 Internal Audit Program Update Finance Committee to develop written comment on City Manager's Proposed Budget. Pursuant to Budget Policy F-3. Tuesday, May 26, 2020 Council Study Session - 2nd Council Review of Proposed Budget if necessary Review Proposed Budget Finance Committee Attendance Optional Thursday, May 28, 2020 Reserved if Necessary Tuesday, June 09, 2020 City Council Budget Adoption Finance Committee Attendance Optional Thursday, June 11, 2020 Internal Audit Program Update Auditors to provide an overview of enterprise risk assessments and discuss next steps Thursday, June 25, 2020 Reserved if Necessary May June