s
s
Sections
Sections
Subscribe
You've read 5 of 15 free articles this month.
Get unlimited access to PressDemocrat.com, the eEdition and our mobile app starting at 99 cents per month.
Already a subscriber?
You've read 10 of 15 free articles this month.
Get unlimited access to PressDemocrat.com, the eEdition and our mobile app starting at 99 cents per month.
Already a subscriber?
You've read all of your free articles this month.
Get unlimited access to PressDemocrat.com, the eEdition and our mobile app starting at 99 cents per month.
Already a subscriber?
We've got a special deal for readers like you.
Get unlimited access to PressDemocrat.com, the eEdition and our mobile app starting 99 cents per month and support local journalism.
Already a subscriber?
Thanks for reading! Why not subscribe?
Get unlimited access to PressDemocrat.com, the eEdition and our mobile app starting 99 cents per month and support local journalism.
Already a subscriber?
Want to keep reading? Subscribe today!
Ooops! You're out of free articles. Starting at just 99 cents per month, you can keep reading all of our products and support local journalism.
Already a subscriber?

Public pension critics and independent experts say new accounting rules for state and local governments will expose retirement systems to greater scrutiny and increase the pressure to rein in soaring costs.

Pension officials and their consultants counter that the proposed national rules, which would require governments to fully disclose in one place the long-term costs of their pension plans, are not expected to have an immediate impact on public coffers.

But the rule changes could hasten overhauls by making the financial outlook for most pension plans appear even more dire in the aftermath of the 2008 market crash.

Were the standards in effect today, Sonoma County's government's unfunded pension liabilities would jump 55 percent, from $249 million to $388 million. The difference primarily reflects investment market losses, which going forward will be recognized in full each year in government statements.

For the county, that disclosure could show that its liabilities, including $515 million in pension bond debt, are $903 million, which is half the pension fund's $1.8 billion in assets.

That darker picture, seen throughout California and the country, could result in what one local government critic called a "bloodbath" over the financial burdens amassed by public employers.

"It is going to show people that the only way your county was able to say it had a balanced budget in the past was to defer millions of pension expenses into the future," said John Dickerson, a financial analyst in Mendocino County who tracks government spending issues.

Pension system officials and their consultants push back, saying that such snapshots, which can swing wildly up and down depending on the market, are a poor measure of actual costs. A better measure, they say, are the annual contributions required of taxpayers — and to a lesser degree employees — which are based on multi-year projections that smooth out gains and losses.

"The important thing to remember is that pension liability is a longer-term obligation," said Sonoma County Administrator Veronica Ferguson. "This change will make it more incumbent upon us to explain what that means."

Sonoma County's retirement system has come under scrutiny with the disclosure of pension records showing sharply escalating average pensions for newer retirees. That trend — and the two latest rounds of borrowing used to support it — has fueled a more than 300 percent rise in taxpayer costs since 2001 and restricted the county's ability to fund a range of public services.

Political interest in public pensions nationwide has drawn attention to the debate on the five-year effort by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board to overhaul pension accounting rules for state and local governments.

The stakes are high in part because similar changes decades ago in the private sector were a factor — some say a key factor — in opening up company books and heralding the widespread demise of private defined-benefit pension plans.

Government officials shrug off that comparison, saying their retirement costs long have been disclosed, even if in ways confounding to the general public. Greater scrutiny is not likely to set off a similar exodus, they said.

The accounting board is set to take public input on its recommendations at a hearing in San Francisco on Thursday. The final set of rules is due in June and would take effect for many governments starting in the 2012-2013 fiscal year.

The reporting standard is one of several closely watched pension accounting proposals being developed by the board. Government critics say the new rules are needed to unmask the total amount of unfunded promises to public-sector workers, which often appear in separate sheets and figures in government reports.

Under the new reporting standard, the total unfunded liability would be highlighted at the front of the financial books for all to see. Pension accounting experts say the reporting change is a significant one.

"It's becoming a balance sheet item rather than just a footnote. That's a fundamental shift," said Bill Karbon, vice president and director of compliance at the CBIZ Benefits and Insurance Inc., a national consulting firm.

Another consultant told Sonoma County pension officials and county leaders this week that the reporting change is not expected to have a profound impact on credit ratings. The relationship with balanced budget requirements is not yet clear, the consultant said.

The increased reporting workload is, however.

"The new rules are going to complicate your life," Paul Angelo, senior vice president with The Segal Company and actuary for Sonoma County's pension system, told retirement board members and county officials gathered Wednesday at the upscale Healdsburg Hotel.

Angelo and other experts interviewed this week said they don't expect the change to directly affect the amount taxpayers are obligated to contribute to public pension systems annually. Responsibility for setting those contribution levels will remain with retirement boards and their actuaries.

The exception would be governments with insufficient existing and projected investments to meet benefits for current workers, retirees and their beneficiaries.

In those cases, the accounting board's complex solution could ultimately result in the adoption of lower expected rates of return and hikes in taxpayer contributions.

Such changes aren't on the horizon for Sonoma County's pension system, officials stressed this week.

"I think we're going to be putting a big number on our balance sheet," Donna Dunk, the county's interim financial chief, conceded during the pension board meeting.

In follow-up interview she added that the county has dealt with such accounting changes in the past.

"What I've seen is they come in, we get used it, the rating agencies get used to it. A lot of the things we feared didn't happen," she said.

But critics argue that inadequate funding policies and overly optimistic assumptions about investment earnings have failed to cover obligations to public retirees. The full disclosures will show how unfunded liability can rise based on decisions about benefits and other financial moves tied to pensions, they say.

"That's the big, big change," said Dickerson, the Mendocino financial analyst. "In the past, the impact of the decisions made by the Board of Supervisors didn't get reported while they were in office. Now there will be reporting on decisions that created the debt," he said.

"That starts to create pressure. That's the bloodbath I'm talking about," he said.