Laserfiche WebLink
6.1. G. - Page 19 <br /> that, in their opinion, the GASB 34 recammend�tions vaere low and, in this environment, UGFB <br /> Ievels tw'ic� those �evels are appropria�� fo�' most cities. <br /> Giv�n this cante�t, a quick and useft�l way to laok at cities' and t�ie County's current situatian <br /> w•ith respect to rese�rves fo��aws in Table 2 below <br /> Table 2 <br /> Cities and County Levels of Current {2010 except wh�re noted) UGFS <br /> As % af General Fund Revenues <br /> 0-1S°/a (upper end of 16 — 29% {between current 30% or higher (auditor <br /> current GASB 34 GASB recommendatiou sugges�ed minimurn for <br /> recomme�ded range) and auditor suggested Enost cities in cu�rent <br /> range} environment) <br /> f Belmont Brisbane ('49) Atherton <br /> � Millbrae Burlingaine CoIrna ('0�) <br /> � San Mateo Pacifica ('09} Daly City <br /> � Redwood City East Palo Alto <br /> � San Bruno Foster City <br /> � South San Fra.ncisco Half Moon Bay � <br /> � �an Mateo County Hillsborough � <br /> Men�a Park � <br /> Portola Valley � <br /> � San Carlos � <br /> � Woodside � <br /> 3 total 7 total 11 total � <br /> Smal�er cities ir� tez o�revenues and expenses tend to mai��tain higher levels of reserv�s. This <br /> is to be expected because �arger cities generally have more diverse ecanomies and revenue <br /> sources. Smaller cities are dependent on fewer sources for the bulk af t�eir revenue and are <br /> therefore at greater risk in downturns. They therefore benefit from higher levels of Unreserved <br /> General Fund Balance as insulation. <br /> F. Retiree Pension and Health Gare Paymer�ts <br /> This investigation of reserves and the extent of cost cu�ting to match revena�es occurred during a <br /> period of heavy media attention to the impact the cost of retiree benet"its were having on local <br /> government fir�ances. This Ied the Grand Jury to examine whether or not cities and the County <br /> were fulfilling thEir annual payments to the systerns cowering these benefits. This is separate and <br /> distinct from the znuch larger issue of the relative financial soundne�s of these systems and fut�re <br /> costs to the cities and County, which wez beyond the scope o:f this investigation. The results o�' <br /> this assessment o£annual payinents to Californaa Public Eznployees' Retirez�rzent Systerrz <br /> (CaiPER.S� and the Sar� Mateo County Employees' Retizement Ass4ciatian (SamCERA) for <br /> pensions and of the health care portion af Other Post-Eznployrnent Benefzts (QPEB) follow <br /> separateIy below. <br /> 1 �4 <br />