California  2017 Funding Assumption Survey 
                                         Updated May 2017
 
Assumed Base  Assumed Amortization Valuation Asset
RANK PLAN SPONSOR Investment Wage  "Excess"     Period   Asset Smoothing
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2011 2010 2009    Return Inflation Investment    (years)  Corridor Period
   Return
   (a) (b) (a)  -  (b)
1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 CalPERS - Legislative  (closed) 5.75% 3.00% 2.75% 30- but FR  >  100%; G/L 30 layered N/A (Market) N/A
2 4 4 23 17 3 7 13 City of San Jose (Safety) 6.875% 3.25% 3.625% most  G/L 15 layered Y: 80-120 5
3 2 2 2 4 5 4 4 Contra Costa County 7.00% 3.25% 3.75% 7 - declining; G/L 18 layered       N 5
4 3 3 3 2 9 9 10 San Mateo County 7.00% 3.25% 3.75% 7 - declining; G/L 15 layered Y: 80-120 5
5 5 5 4 7 10 11 15 City of San Diego 5 7.00% 3.05% 3.95% 12-declining;G/L layered 15.  most level $$ Y: 80-120 4
6 6 6 5 3 4 5 5 CalPERS - Judges  1, 3 7.00% 3.00% 4.00% 30-declining; G/L 30 layered (100+% FR) N/A (market)            N/A
7 8 8 8 5 6 8 7 LA Department of Water & Power 7.25% 3.50% 3.75% 15 - layered    Level $$       N 5
8 11 11 10 22 20 22 24 Fresno County 7.00% 3.50% 3.50% 17-declining; G/L 15 layered Y: 70-130 5
9 20 20 16 18 18 30 31 Santa Barbara County 3  7.00% 3.00% 4.00% most 14-declining; G/L 19 layered N/A(market) N/A
10 14 14 12 13 14 13 11 Sonoma County 7.25% 3.50% 3.75% 12-declining; G/L 20 layered       N 5
11 15 15 13 33 32 31 32 City of Fresno (Safety)    11 7.25% 3.50% 3.75% G/L 15-layered (100+% FR)       N 5
12 16 16 14 34 31 32 33 City of Fresno (General) 6 11 7.25% 3.50% 3.75% G/L 15 layered  (100+% FR)       N 5
13 7 7 6 8 11 37 36 Alameda-Contra  Costa Transit  4 7.25% 3.00% 4.25%  12-declining; G/L layered Y: 80-120 5
14 9 9 7 11 13 10 12 Ventura County 7.50% 3.50% 4.00% 3-declining; G/L 15 - layered       N 5
15 10 10 9 6 12 12 16 San Bernardino County 7.50% 3.75% 3.75% 6-declining; G/L layered 20       N 5
16 12 12 31 29 33 34 40 City of San Jose (General)   6.875% 2.85% 4.025%  most 23 - declining; G/L layered 20       N 5
17 13 13 11 10 8 3 3 City & County of San Francisco 7.50% 3.75% 3.75% most 17-declining; G/L 20 layered       N 5
18 17 22 22 31 30 29 30 San Diego County 7.50% 3.75% 3.75% 8-declining; G/L 20  layered       N 5
19 18 17 17 12 34 33 35 Orange County 7.25% 3.50% 3.75% 17-declining; G/L 20 layered       N 5
20 19 18 18 23 22 15 17 Imperial County 7.50% 3.75% 3.75% 15 - declining; G/L 15 layered Y: 70-130 5
21 24 19 15 9 21 21 14 Marin County  4 7.25% 3.00% 4.25%  17-declining;  G/L 24 layered N/A (Market)            N/A
22 22 36 36 37 39 39 38 Stanislaus County 7.25% 3.25% 4.00% 20 - declining Y: 80-120 5
23 31 31 21 15 16 14 9 Merced County 7.25% 2.75% 4.50% 13- declining;G/L 24 layered and ramped  N/A(market)             N/A
24 23 21 25 16 17 16 19 Los Angeles Fire & Police 7.50% 4.00% 3.50%  most 21 declining; most G/L 20 layered Y: 60-140 7
25 27 25 27 21 35 35 28 San Luis Obispo County 8 7.125% 3.375% 3.75% 24- declining       N 5
26 26 23 19 28 28 25 23 San Joaquin County 7 7.40% 3.15% 4.25% 17-declining; G/L 15 layered Y: 80-120 5
27 25 24 26 20 24 23 25 Kern County 7.50% 3.75% 3.75% 19.5 - declining; G/L 18 layered Y: 50-150 5
28 28 27 28 24 23 17 20 Alameda County 7.60% 3.75% 3.85% 16 - declining ; G/L 20 layered Y: 60-140 5
29 29 30 32 30 36 27 8 Mendocino County 7.25% 3.75% 3.50% 23-declining; G/L 18 layered Y: 75-125 5
30 21 26 20 14 15 6 6 University of California 10 7.25% 3.50% 3.75% 24-declining,  G/L 20 layered   Level $$       N 5
31 30 28 29 25 25 24 29 Sacramento County 7.50% 3.50% 4.00% Most 19 - declining; G/L 20 layered Y: 70-130 7
32 34 34 35 36 40 40 39 East Bay Municipal Utility 7.25% 3.50% 3.75% Pre-2012 layered 30; Otherwise G/L-20 layered Y: 70-130 5
33 32 32 30 26 26 20 22 City of Los Angeles 7.50% 4.00% 3.50% most 26-declining ; G/L 15-layered Y: 60-140 7
34 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
35 35 35 34 27 27 26 27 Los Angeles County                                                                                  7.25% 3.25% 4.00% 23- declining;  G/L 30 layered       N 5
36 36 37 37 35 29 28 26 CalSTRS 7.25% 3.50% 3.75% 30 years with laddered increases       N 3
37 37 29 24 19 19 19 21 Tulare County 9 7.60% 3.00% 4.60% 18-declining; G/L 19 layered Y: 70-130 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 via ramping
          Intent is to lower investment return to 7% over 2-3 years with undecided impact on base wage inflation
4:  50% of  "extraordinary" 2008/09 losses amortized over 30 years; G/L amortization is subject to ramping
5   System is closed for non-Police;
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 and assumes proposed Experience Investigation changes are adopted
9 Assumed Investment return scheduled to decrease by 0.05% annually
10   Post-7/1/16 hires have option to elect to be in defined contribution ("DC") plan
               6% contribution will be made toward UAL for those in DC plan.
               Additional state contributions may be required as 14% employer rate and 8% employee rate are significantly below actuarially determined rate.
11 If FR (funded ratio) >110%, 25-year amortization of surplus
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.