Unfunded Pension Liabilities: Board Response

Response says

Disagrees; gives $162,574,446 using four June 30, 2015 CalPERS plan valuations.

Audit analysis

Explicit whole disagreement with a plan-by-plan table and valuation-report page references. Figures are the Board’s corrections, not independently verified hub totals.

Response says

Disagrees; gives $261,167,320 using June 30, 2024 Miscellaneous and Safety valuations.

Audit analysis

The disagreement begins on page 1; page 2 supplies the explanation, component amounts, valuation dates and report-page references. It distinguishes valuation dates from payment fiscal years.

Response says

Agrees and explains CalPERS’s annual point-in-time amortization method.

Audit analysis

Agreement is explicit. The response explains the twenty-year schedule and identifies CalPERS’s annual amortization plan as its basis.

Response says

Partly disagrees: liabilities and assets grew while funded ratios remained approximately 67% versus 68%.

Audit analysis

The accepted dollar growth and disputed characterization of a worsened position are clearly separated. The response identifies funded-ratio calculations rather than merely denying the finding.

Response says

Disagrees; gives $7,391,504 for Miscellaneous and explains that Safety costs were bundled.

Audit analysis

The response identifies the disputed payment and why a separate Safety amortization amount is not used. The actuarial-report basis is identified; the Safety explanation continues on page 3.

Response says

Disagrees; identifies $17,322,343 for Miscellaneous plus $2,493,196 for Safety, totaling $19,815,539.

Audit analysis

Whole disagreement includes a concrete alternative calculation and fiscal-year description. Unlike F1–F2, this paragraph does not identify a particular underlying payment record.

Response says

Disagrees; states $141,004,015 was paid toward unfunded accrued liability during the period.

Audit analysis

The disputed amount is clear, but an alternative total alone does not explain the discrepancy, provide a calculation, or identify its source.

Response says

Agrees with the 2039 projection and explains its twenty-year, June 30, 2019 valuation basis.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement covers the projection and identifies the relevant CalPERS amortization model and date. It does not promise that future valuations will leave that date unchanged.

Response says

Agrees with the 2044 projection and explains its twenty-year, June 30, 2024 valuation basis.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement covers the stated projection and identifies its dated CalPERS schedule. A point-in-time projection is distinguished from a guaranteed future result.

Response says

Agrees that PEPRA should help and describes employee-tier differences and cost sharing.

Audit analysis

The paragraph addresses the Board’s belief with pension-formula and cost-share reasoning. PEPRA provides an identified basis; the explanation and dated tier changes continue on page 4.

Response says

Agrees it has not performed its own PEPRA studies; cites CalPERS tier analysis and promises annual tier data.

Audit analysis

Agreement directly covers the absence of County studies. The response identifies actuarial reports and describes employee counts, normal costs and liability data planned for annual reporting.

Response says

Disagrees; describes annual priority reviews, trust contributions and balancing pensions with public-safety needs.

Audit analysis

Whole disagreement supplies relevant priority-setting reasons and identifies the Section 115 Trust. It does not directly establish a different historical allocation between immediate needs and additional debt payments.

Response says

Agrees no voluntary additional payments were made; explains reserves, the trust and emergency priorities.

Audit analysis

Agreement begins on page 4. Page 5 supplies the explanation, dated FEMA disaster references and the 2019 pension policy; those supporting details are not treated as independently verified outcomes.

Response says

Agrees with the December 31, 2025 Section 115 Trust balance.

Audit analysis

A bare agreement fully states the finding position but supplies no additional reasoning or identified balance record.

Response says

Disagrees; identifies at least 27 Board occasions discussing pension liabilities.

Audit analysis

The response explicitly disputes the claimed absence of discussion and introduces a dated meeting-record list on pages 6–8 with legislative identifiers. That is traceable support, not a hub finding that all cited meetings establish an effective plan.

Response says

Disagrees; cites the 2019 policy, October 2025 policy revision and a forthcoming annual funding plan.

Audit analysis

The response provides policy and resolution references and scheduled actions. It partly answers the compound finding: a policy and developing plan do not document implementation of the complete debt-addressing plan described by the jury.

Response says

Disagrees with the description of its earlier promise; says it committed to a 2025 workshop and policy direction.

Audit analysis

The response identifies the disputed characterization and provides a concrete alternative account, followed by consultant work. Its account is scored as an explained disagreement, not independently reconciled with the prior response.

Response says

Disagrees; describes consultant work, an October 2025 policy revision and a plan scheduled for May 12, 2026.

Audit analysis

Dated steps are traceable, but the paragraph describes developing and forthcoming work rather than clearly identifying a completed plan by the disputed year-end deadline.

Response says

Disagrees; names CalMuni Advisors and Wiest Law and states contracts were executed July 1, 2025.

Audit analysis

Names, contract dates and the described work directly explain the disagreement about hiring consultants. Contract execution dates remain the respondent’s account; the report’s contract appendices are separate source context.

Response says

Disagrees with the scale of interest savings; claims more than $5.6 million from FY2017–18 through FY2025–26 prepayment.

Audit analysis

The paragraph identifies the disputed scale, time period, payment mechanism and CalPERS actuarial-report basis. The savings amount is attributed to the Board rather than verified independently.

Response says

Agrees with the unspent-fund range; notes that much is reserved or assigned to specific uses.

Audit analysis

The agreement covers the stated range. The qualification is relevant but general here, and this paragraph does not identify a supporting reserve schedule.

Response says

Agrees no additional payments came from those funds; explains objectives of the 2019 pension policy.

Audit analysis

Agreement covers the payment claim. The named policy and listed flexibility, stabilization and smoothing objectives give a concrete explanation for the decision.

Response says

Disagrees with certainty about eliminating total liability by 2037, while accepting the static June 2024 calculation.

Audit analysis

The response explains new amortization bases and annual valuation changes. It concedes the finding’s fixed-2024 projection but challenges broader future-total certainty; the disputed scope is therefore materially incomplete for the finding as actually framed.

Response says

Will not implement; defends the 2019 policy’s balance between pensions and service delivery.

Audit analysis

The disposition is explicit on page 10; page 11 explains the policy’s intended flexibility and near-stable funded ratios. Refusal with reasons is not treated as non-engagement.

Response says

Will not implement; nevertheless describes trust funding, prepayment and assigned pension reserves.

Audit analysis

The response rejects the requested format while identifying measures it considers proactive. These are respondent descriptions, not an independently assessed account of policy effectiveness.

Response says

Will not implement; gives trust and pension-assignment balances plus claimed prepayment savings.

Audit analysis

Despite the refusal label, the paragraph supplies concrete amounts: $4,129,940 in the trust, $6 million assigned and $5.6 million in claimed savings. Stock balances and savings are different measures, and no independent reconciliation is implied.

Response says

Will not implement; states no contributions above minimum amortization were made.

Audit analysis

The stated absence of any additional contributions directly answers the requested additional-payment amount, while the paragraph explains the policy rationale. It does not imply trust deposits themselves reduced CalPERS liability.

Response says

Claims implementation through vacancy and staffing-change review.

Audit analysis

The recommendation asks for consideration of staff reductions, not a mandatory reduction. The response describes a review process for necessity, sustainability, restructuring and limited-term staffing; actual cuts are not verified.

Response says

Claims implementation through PEPRA pensionable-pay limits and describes workforce and credit-rating context.

Audit analysis

Pension-benefit limits are explained, but the separate request to consider limiting salary increases is not directly resolved. Credit ratings and general debt context do not establish a salary-increase decision.

Response says

Claims implementation; cites PEPRA pensionable-pay limits, market studies and executive restructuring.

Audit analysis

A cap on earnings used for pension calculations is not a cap on actual executive salaries. Market competitiveness explains compensation policy but leaves the requested executive-salary-cap consideration incompletely mapped.

Response says

Claims implementation; describes eliminated or reduced services as COVID-related revenue ends.

Audit analysis

The response discusses service reductions and annual priorities but does not identify which reductions concern non-health-and-safety services, the recommendation’s material scope. No particular reduction is independently verified.

Response says

Claims implementation; says no duplicate State and County services are known and describes mandated coordination.

Audit analysis

The response directly addresses the premise of duplication and explains the County’s State-mandated role. Considering elimination need not produce a cut if the respondent identifies no duplication.

Response says

Will not implement the 2037 full-funding target; promises annual plans and a January 2027 compliance report.

Audit analysis

The target is expressly declined with service-cut and actuarial-uncertainty reasons. The alternative reporting commitments remain distinct from accepting the jury’s payoff date or guaranteeing fully funded status.

Response says

Will implement annual review of unexpended-fund allocations while creating the Pension Plan.

Audit analysis

The paragraph promises review, not a substantial allocation or defined share of unexpended funds. The future-action category is preserved as the agency’s claim while coverage is marked partial.