California  2016 Funding Assumption Survey
Updated April 2016
										Assumed	Base	Assumed	Amortization	Valuation	Asset
RANK							PLAN SPONSOR			Investment	Wage	"Excess"	Period	Asset	Smoothing
2016	2015	2014	2013	2011	2010	2009				Return	Inflation	Investment	(years)	Corridor	Period
												Return
										(a)	(b)	(a)  -  (b)
1	1	1	1	1	2	2	CalPERS - Legislative  (closed)			5.75%	3.00%	2.75%	30-declining but FR  >  100%	Y: 80-120	15
2	2	2	4	5	4	4	Contra Costa County			7.25%	4.00%	3.25%	7 - declining; G/L 18 layered	N	5
3	3	3	2	9	9	10	San Mateo County			7.25%	3.50%	3.75%	8 - declining; G/L 15 layered	Y: 80-120	5
4	4	23	17	3	7	13	City of San Jose (Safety)			7.00%	3.25%	3.75%	most  G/L 16 layered	Y: 80-120	5
5	5	4	7	10	11	15	City of San Diego 5			7.125%	3.175%	3.95%	12-declining;G/L layered 15.  most level $$	Y: 80-120	4
6	6	5	3	4	5	5	CalPERS - Judges  1, 3			7.00%	3.00%	4.00%	30-declining; G/L 30 layered (100+% FR)	N/A (market)	N/A
7	7	6	8	11	37	36	Alameda-Contra  Costa Transit  4			7.25%	3.00%	4.25%	most 13-declining to 12 then open	Y: 80-120	5
8	8	8	5	6	8	7	LA Department of Water & Power			7.50%	4.00%	3.50%	15 - layered    Level $$	N	5
9	9	7	11	13	10	12	Ventura County			7.50%	3.50%	4.00%	4-declining; G/L 15 - layered	N	5
10	10	9	6	12	12	16	San Bernardino County			7.50%	3.75%	3.75%	7-declining; G/L layered 20	N	5
11	11	10	22	20	22	24	Fresno County			7.25%	3.75%	3.50%	18-declining; G/L 15 layered	Y: 70-130	5
12	12	31	29	33	34	40	City of San Jose (General)			7.00%	2.85%	4.15%	most 24 - declining; G/L layered 20	N	5
13	13	11	10	8	3	3	City & County of San Francisco			7.50%	3.75%	3.75%	18-layered; G/L 20 layered	N	5
14	14	12	13	14	13	11	Sonoma County			7.50%	4.00%	3.50%	13-declining; G/L 20 layered	N	5
15	15	13	33	32	31	32	City of Fresno (Safety)			7.50%	3.75%	3.75%	G/L 15-layered (100+% FR)	N	5
16	16	14	34	31	32	33	City of Fresno (General) 6			7.50%	3.75%	3.75%	G/L 15 layered  (100+% FR)	N	5
17	22	22	31	30	29	30	San Diego County			7.50%	3.75%	3.75%	9-declining; G/L 20  layered	N	5
18	17	17	12	34	33	35	Orange County			7.25%	3.50%	3.75%	18-declining; G/L 20 layered	N	5
19	18	18	23	22	15	17	Imperial County			7.50%	3.75%	3.75%	16 - declining; G/L 15 layered	Y: 70-130	5
20	20	16	18	18	30	31	Santa Barbara County 3			7.50%	3.50%	4.00%	most 15-declining; G/L 19 layered	N/A(market)	N/A
21	26	20	14	15	6	6	University of California 10			7.25%	3.50%	3.75%	25-declining,  G/L 20 layered   Level $$	N	5
22	36	36	37	39	39	38	Stanislaus County 5			7.25%	3.25%	4.00%	21 - declining	Y: 80-120	5
23	21	25	16	17	16	19	Los Angeles Fire & Police			7.50%	4.00%	3.50%	Non- G/L most 22 declining;	Y: 60-140	7
24	19	15	9	21	21	14	Marin County  4			7.50%	3.25%	4.25%	most 16 declining	Y: 80-120	5
25	24	26	20	24	23	25	Kern County			7.50%	3.75%	3.75%	20.5 - declining; G/L 18 layered	Y: 50-150	5
26	23	19	28	28	25	23	San Joaquin County 7			7.50%	3.25%	4.25%	18-declining; G/L 15 layered	Y: 80-120	5
27	25	27	21	35	35	28	San Luis Obispo County 8			7.25%	3.75%	3.50%	25- declining	N	5
28	27	28	24	23	17	20	Alameda County			7.60%	3.75%	3.85%	17 - declining ; G/L 20 layered	Y: 60-140	5
29	30	32	30	36	27	8	Mendocino County			7.25%	3.75%	3.50%	24-declining; G/L 18 layered	Y: 75-125	5
30	28	29	25	25	24	29	Sacramento County			7.50%	3.50%	4.00%	Most 20 - declining; G/L 20 layered	Y: 70-130	7
31	31	21	15	16	14	9	Merced County			7.75%	3.00%	4.75%	14- declining;G/L 24 layered and ramped	N/A(market)	N/A
32	32	30	26	26	20	22	City of Los Angeles			7.50%	4.00%	3.50%	most 27-declining ; G/L 15-layered	Y: 60-140	7
33	33	33	32	37	38	37	CalPERS 3			7.50%	3.00%	4.50%	19-declining with 5-year ramping	N/A(market)	N/A
34	34	35	36	40	40	39	East Bay Municipal Utility			7.50%	3.50%	4.00%	most 22-declining; Future G/L-20 layered	Y: 70-130	5
35	35	34	27	27	26	27	Los Angeles County			7.50%	3.50%	4.00%	24 - declining;  G/L 30 layered	N	5
36	37	37	35	29	28	26	CalSTRS			7.50%	3.75%	3.75%	32 years with laddered increases	N	3
37	29	24	19	19	19	21	Tulare County 9			7.65%	3.00%	4.65%	19-declining; G/L 19 layered	N	10
							NOTES:						Bold indicates change from previous survey.
							1:  This does not reflect the Judges I system closed in 1994:  features include pay-as-you-go funding and a 4.25% assumed investment return
							2:  Legal agreement determines contribution level -- pegged to specified funded ratios
							3:  Instead of asset smoothing, contribution smoothing employed to approximate 25-year amortization and 5-year asset smoothing
							4:  50% of  "extraordinary" 2008/09 losses amortized over 30 years
							5   System is closed for non-Police; Investment return to be reduced to 7.0% for 2016 valuation.
							6  Amortization will revert to average future working lifetime, roughly 10 years, in event FR becomes < 100%
							7 Extraordinary 2008 actuarial loss amortized over 30 years
							8 2008 actuarial losses amortized over 10 years
							9 Assumed Investment return scheduled to decrease by 0.05% annually
							10  Full funding expected to occur by roughly 2043 based on anticipated DC plan election rates for new participants
							Survey and related text  will be posted on roederfinancial.com    We can be contacted at (619) 300-8500
							FR  =  Funded ratio			G/L  =  actuarial gains/actuarial losses			"Layered" means a new amotization base is created each year.
							POB  =  Pension Obligation Bond			DC = Defined Contribution
		Effective with the 2013 survey, the number of entities was reduced from 40 to 37, eliminating three small closed systems.
		The amortization periods for assumption changes are often longer than for G/L and are not shown here.  Often, there is a separate amortization policy applicable to benefit changes.