WAYNE COUNTY EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEMwcers.org/publications/GRS Actuarial Assumptions Study.pdf · Brian B. Murphy and Judith A. Kermans are Members of the American Academy

WAYNE COUNTY EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM

5 - Y E A R E X P E R I E N C E S T U D Y O C T O B E R 1 , 2 0 1 0 T H R O U G H S E P T E M B E R 3 0 , 2 0 1 5

Wayne County Employees’ Retirement System

ACTUARIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT OCTOBER 1, 2010-SEPTEMBER 30, 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Item Pages

Cover Letter 1

Section A: Overview and Economic Assumptions 2-14

Section B: Summary of the Valuation Results 15-16

Section C: Withdrawal Experience 17-32

Section D: Disability Experience 33-40

Section E: Retirement Experience 41-48

Section F: Salary Increases 49-52

Section G: Summary of New Assumptions 53-60

C0041 -1-

November 22, 2016 Retirement Commission (Board) Wayne County Employees’ Retirement System Detroit, Michigan Dear Commission Members: At your request, we have performed a review of the actuarial assumptions used to value the Wayne County Employees’ Retirement System (WCERS). The primary purpose of the study is to determine the continued appropriateness of the current actuarial assumptions (used in valuing WCERS actuarial liabilities and establishing employer contribution rates). Our study was based upon the member data furnished by Retirement System staff for annual actuarial valuations during the period October 1, 2010 to September 30, 2015. Our study includes a review of the experience associated with the following actuarial assumptions:

• Inflation • Investment Return • Salary Increases • Withdrawal • Retirement • Disability • Mortality

This report has been prepared by actuaries who have substantial experience valuing public employee retirement systems. We certify that, to the best of our knowledge, this report is complete and accurate and was made in accordance with standards of practice promulgated by the Actuarial Standards Board. The actuarial assumptions that result from this study produce results which, individually and in the aggregate, are reasonable. Brian B. Murphy and Judith A. Kermans are Members of the American Academy of Actuaries (MAAA) and meet the Qualification Standards of the American Academy of Actuaries to render the actuarial opinions contained herein. The signing actuaries are independent of the plan sponsor. Respectfully submitted,

Brian B. Murphy, FSA, EA, FCA, MAAA

Judith A. Kermans, EA, FCA, MAAA BBM/JAK:bd

SECTION A O V E RV I E W A N D E C O N O M IC A S S U M P T IO N S

Wayne County Employees’ Retirement System -2-

INTRODUCTION Each year, as of September 30, the liabilities of the Wayne County Employees’ Retirement System are valued. In order to perform the valuation, assumptions must be made regarding the future experience of the System with regard to the following risk areas:

• Rates of withdrawal of active participants.

• Rates of disability among active participants.

• Patterns of salary increases to active participants.

• Rates of retirement among active participants.

• Rates of mortality among active participants, retirees, and beneficiaries.

• Long-term rates of investment return to be generated by the assets of the System. Assumptions should be carefully chosen and continually monitored. A poor initial choice of assumptions or continued use of outdated assumptions can lead to:

• Understated costs resulting in either an inability to pay benefits when due, or sharp increases in required contributions at some point in the future;

• Overstated costs resulting in an unnecessarily large burden on the current generation of

participants, employers and taxpayers.

A single set of assumptions will not be suitable indefinitely. Conditions change, and our understanding of conditions (whether or not they are changing) also changes. The results of an experience study for the period October 1, 2010 to September 30, 2015 follows. No single 5-year experience period should be given full credibility in the setting of actuarial valuation assumptions. When we see significant differences between what is expected from our assumptions and actual experience, our strategy in recommending a change in assumptions is usually to select rates that would produce results somewhere between the actual and expected experience. In this way, with each experience study the actuarial assumptions become better and better representations of underlying behavior patterns. Consequently, temporary conditions that might influence a particular experience study period will not unduly influence the choice of long-term assumptions. We are recommending certain changes in assumptions. The various assumption changes are described on the following pages. Actuarial assumptions were last revised for the September 30, 2011 regular actuarial valuation.


SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

The five-year period (October 1, 2010 to September 30, 2015) covered by this experience study provided sufficient data to form a basis for recommending changes in many of the assumptions used in the actuarial valuations of the Wayne County Employees’ Retirement System. The recommended actuarial assumption changes resulting from this experience study are summarized below:

• Update the assumption for rates of withdrawals. • Update the rates of expected normal (unreduced) retirement for males and females. • Determine the rates of expected early (reduced) retirement for males and females. • Update the rates of expected merit and seniority pay increases. • Update post-retirement mortality assumptions. • Update pre-retirement mortality assumptions.

WCERS does not have sufficient experience to develop an independent mortality table. Proposed assumptions are based on recently published mortality tables: RP-2014 with MP-2016 projection scale. A nationwide study of Public Sector Retirement Systems is underway and WCERS mortality assumptions could be revisited once it is complete. WCERS currently assumes inflation of 3.5%. We estimated the effect with assumed wage inflation at 3.00% and assumed investment return at 7.00% and 7.50%. Our findings are discussed beginning on page 15. Results based upon the recommended demographic assumptions and the range of economic assumptions we are recommending are shown in Section B.


ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS

The relevant Actuarial Standard of Practice for economic assumption setting is ASOP No. 27, Selection of Economic Assumptions for Measuring Pension Obligations. Note that ASOP No. 27 has been revised since the last experience study. Perhaps the most significant change is the narrowing of the reasonable range for economic assumptions. All recommendations on economic assumptions in this report are based on the current version of ASOP No. 27. Under ASOP No. 27, the type of measurement consistent with the funding of the System is referred to as contribution budgeting. For contribution budgeting with the level percent-of-payroll objective, the selection of the investment return assumption depends upon the investment portfolio and investment policy. It is important to note that an actuarial investment return assumption based on expected future experience is a single estimate and, consequently, implicitly assumes that positive and negative risk will “cancel out” over time. In other words, the investment risk is not reflected in advance under this approach. Instead, investment risk is reflected with each annual actuarial valuation as actual investment experience emerges. An alternative approach is to determine present values using a discount rate assumption which is independent of the investment portfolio and, therefore, independent of the investment risk. This approach is referred to in ASOP No. 27 as a market-consistent measurement. As described in ASOP No. 27, “…a market-consistent measurement may use a discount rate implicit in the price at which benefits that are expected to be paid in the future would trade in an open market between a knowledgeable seller and a knowledgeable buyer. In some instances, that discount rate may be approximated by market yields for a hypothetical bond portfolio whose cash flows reasonably match the pattern of benefits expected to be paid in the future. The type and quality of bonds in the hypothetical portfolio may depend on the particular type of market-consistent measurement.” In the current low interest rate environment, a market-consistent measurement of the benefit obligation would be based on a discount rate much lower than a reasonable assumed rate of investment return and therefore equate to a much higher liability. Moreover, with interest rates changing every year, the market-consistent discount rates would change every year, introducing volatility in the liability measurement. In our opinion, a market-consistent measurement is not consistent with the objective of budgeting contributions as a level percent-of-payroll. That said, a market-consistent measurement may be useful for investment purposes such as a liability driven investment strategy. In addition, the Actuarial Standards of Practice continue to evolve. There may be a point in the not-too-distant future when a calculation of a market-consistent liability is required to be presented in actuarial valuation reports, even if it is not used for determining budgeting contributions. The following analysis includes reviewing the current investment policy under various capital market assumptions. The purpose of this analysis is to determine the reasonability of the assumed rate of return for purposes of the valuation. Nothing in this report should be construed as investment advice.



Economic Assumptions used in the Annual Actuarial Valuations The remainder of this Section provides the Board with the technical information needed to make an informed decision on the System’s economic assumptions. The economic assumptions used in the annual actuarial valuations are as follows:

• Investment return, • Wage inflation, • Price inflation, • Merit and longevity salary increases, • Size of the active population (economic because of its relationship to total payroll growth), and • Administrative expenses.

Each of these assumptions will be discussed and in some cases the relationships between assumptions will also be discussed. For example, the difference between the investment return assumption and the price inflation assumption is often referred to as the spread or the real return for investment purposes. This information can be useful for investment purposes when assessing certain risk premiums. For actuarial purposes, the difference between the investment return and wage inflation assumption is also a useful measure of the spread or real return since benefits (and hence liabilities) grow with wages not prices. Whenever possible, we will make the distinction clear, but in general, real return is understood most commonly to relate to price inflation. A summary of the economic assumptions currently in place for WCERS is as follows:

• Assumed rate of investment return – 7.75% per year, net of investment and administrative expenses (administrative expenses are paid out of investment earnings),

• Assumed rate of wage inflation – 3.50% per year, • Assumed rate of price inflation – Not specific, • Assumed rate of merit and longevity pay increases – rates based on the age or service of the

member, and • Assumed size of the active population – expected to remain at the current level for county

members. Many of the economic assumptions are developed using a building block method which depends on the analysis of price inflation. Since the last experience study, there has been a significant shift in the expectations on the part of many forecasters for future performance in the capital markets. In particular, expectations for future price inflation have decreased significantly and this affects expectations for nominal returns of most, if not all, investment classes.



Reviewing the Price Inflation Assumption No explicit price inflation assumption is currently used in the valuation since there are no benefits that are specifically linked to price inflation. However, a price inflation assumption of 3.00% per year was considered in the building block development of the assumed rate of return in the prior experience study. The high inflation of the 1970s and 1980s is well in the past. The geometric average price inflation over the last 25 years from December 1990 to December 2015 was 2.30% per year. In the five years of the experience study from October 2010 to September 2015, the geometric average price inflation was 1.70% per year. It is important not to give undue weight to recent experience. We must also consider future expectations as well. One measure is the spread between yields on U.S. Treasuries and U.S. TIPS. This calculation varies depending on the maturity selected. Moreover, there may be other influences on the result such as a risk premium on Treasuries and a liquidity premium on TIPS. Nevertheless, it is a measure easily made. The longest horizon we can use for this basis is 30 years. The yield on 30-year Treasuries as of October 17, 2016 was 2.52% and the yield on inflation index TIPS was 0.68% for a raw difference of 1.84%. This is significantly lower than past experience and noticeably below the Federal Reserve’s target inflation rate of 2.0%. Another point of reference is the 2015 Social Security Trustees report which assumed three scenarios of ultimate annual increases in CPI of 3.4%, 2.7%, and 2.0% for the low-cost, intermediate, and high-cost scenarios. The Social Security Trustees report uses the ultimate rates for their 75-year projections, much longer than the longest horizon we can discern from Treasuries and TIPS. Based on this information, our opinion is that it would be reasonable to assume a price inflation assumption of 2.0% to 2.7%. We caution against lowering the price inflation assumption below 2.0%. Even though the Treasury/TIPS measure is below 2.0% for 30 years, the Federal Reserve’s target and the Social Security Trustees’ ultimate high cost assumptions are both 2.0%. Recommendation We recommend an assumed rate of price inflation of 2.50%. Other assumptions may also be reasonable.



Reviewing the Wage Inflation Assumption Macroeconomic theory suggests that, in the long run, wages are expected to exceed prices in an economy with healthy productivity growth. The current wage inflation assumption is 3.5% per year. The average wage inflation experienced from 1990 through 2014 (the last full year available) as measured by the Social Security Administration (SSA) was 3.36% per year, roughly 100 basis points higher than price inflation over the same period. However, the SSA also observes that the median increase in compensation from 1990 through 2014 was 2.91% per year, less than 50 basis points higher than price inflation over the same period. The following chart produced by the SSA illustrates these trends.

In more recent periods, such as the 10-year period from 2004 through 2014, average compensation outpaced inflation by only 40 basis points and median compensation increases were below inflation.



Recommendation We recommend lowering the assumed rate of wage inflation below the current 3.50%. Based on this information, our opinion is that it would be reasonable to lower the 3.50% wage inflation assumption. The selection of wage inflation is linked to the selection of price inflation. On a forward-looking basis, we believe that a spread of wages over prices of 0.50% is reasonable. The total payroll growth assumption is an independent assumption that the Board must select. The combination of 2.5% price inflation and 0.5% real wage growth would typically imply a total payroll growth assumption of 3% per year. The defined benefit valuation payroll peaked in the 9/30/2008 valuation at $138 Million, and has since declined to $95 million, for an average rate of decline on the order of 5% per year. The rate of decline during the period was influenced by a number of early retirement incentives as well as the separation of the Mental Health Authority, neither of which is expected to recur. However, an immediate resumption of payroll increases of 3% per year could be viewed as unlikely. In our judgement, a reasonable range for the total payroll growth assumption over the experience period would be from 0% to 3%. As a general rule, the lower the rate of assumed payroll increase, the greater the percentage of pay needed to fund unfunded actuarial accrued liabilities. Our preferred range for the wage growth assumption over the next experience period is from 2% to 3%. The lower end of the range is in line with the Federal Reserve target for price inflation. The upper end is the sum of our long term price inflation assumption and our long term real wage growth assumption. In our illustrations we have only shown 3% total wage growth. If the Board would like to see illustrated contribution rates based upon wage growth assumptions other than 3%, please let us know. Regardless of what total payroll growth assumption the board chooses, we recommend continuing the funding policy shown on page 2-R of the actuarial report that specifies a minimum dollar amount for the total contribution,


ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS Review of the Administrative Expense Assumption The actuarial valuation currently assumes that administrative expenses are paid out of the System’s investment earnings (i.e., the assumed rate of return is net of both administrative and investment expenses). Over the experience period, the administrative expenses averaged approximately 0.39% of the System’s assets. Therefore, in order to maintain the assumption that administrative expenses are paid from investment earnings, the recommended rates of investment return as shown on pages 12 and 13 would need to the lowered by 0.39% to account for this. If the administrative expenses are included in the contribution rate, they would be paid for each year as part of the contribution requirement. The assumed rate of investment return would be net of investment expenses only and would not need to be reduced by 0.39% as a result. Over the experience period, the administrative expenses for WCERS excluding WCAA averaged approximately 2.3% of payroll and for WCAA, averaged approximately 1.1%. We included a contribution of 2.56% of payroll for WCERS excluding WCAA and 1.13% of payroll for WCAA for administrative expenses and set the investment rate of return to be net of investment expenses only. These percentages would be expected to change periodically depending on actual expenses, and the means by which they apportioned between WCAA and the Wayne County employer.



Reviewing the Investment Return Assumption The review of the investment return assumption in this report are forward-looking measures of likely investment return outcomes for the asset classes in the current investment policy. For purposes of this analysis, we have analyzed the System’s investment policy with the capital market assumptions from eight nationally recognized investment consultants. The investment consultants who have shared their capital market assumptions with us are (in alphabetical order) BNY Mellon, HEK, JPMorgan, Mercer, NEPC, PCA, RVK, and Wilshire. It is important to understand that, in general, no two investment consultants will consider the same asset classes. Moreover, there are differences in investment horizons, price inflation, the treatment of investment expenses, excess manager performance (i.e., alpha), geometric vs. arithmetic averages, and other technical differences. We have incorporated the assumptions of these eight consultants into our Capital Market Assumption Modeler (CMAM). To the best of our ability, we have adapted the System’s investment policy to fit with the eight consultants’ assumptions adjusting for these known differences in assumptions and methodology. In the following charts, all returns are net of investment expenses only and have no assumption for excess manager performance (alpha). ASOP No. 27 acknowledges that for any given economic assumption, there is a reasonable range of opinions on that assumption. This is evident from the summaries we show from our CMAM.


ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS Presented below is the adopted asset allocation policy as of September 30, 2015 for WCERS. The target asset allocation was analyzed to estimate future investment returns.

Asset Class Target Total Equity (14) 50.0%

Domestic Equity(14)* 35.0%

Large Cap 15.0%

Mid Cap 10.0%

Small Cap 5.0%

All Cap 5.0%

International Equity(14)* 15.0%

Developed International 10.0%

Emerging Markets 5.0%

Emerging Markets Small Cap 0.0%

International All Cap 0.0%

US Fixed Income (17 & 17.1.1.iii) 15.0%

US Investment Grade Fixed Income (17) 10.0%

US Investment Grade Fixed Income 10.0%

US Non-Investment Grade Fixed Income (17.1.a.iii) 5.0%

US Core Plus Fixed Income 5.0%

US High Yield Fixed Income 0.0%

Non US Fixed Income (20k) 5.0%

Global Fixed Income 5.0%

Emerging Market Debt 0.0%

Real Estate(18 & 19) 15.0%

Open Ended Core Real Estate (Private) (19) 5.0%

Private Equity Real Estate Value Add (19) 7.5%

Special Situation / Opportunistic (19) 2.5%

REITS 0.0%

Alternative Investments 15.0%

Private Equity Secondaries 2.5%

Private Equity Venture Capital 0.0%

Private Equity Lending (Middle Market Debt) 2.5%

Direct Lending (Specialty Companies) 2.5%

Global Macro 0.0%

Hedge Fund of Funds 2.5%

Equity Long Short 0.0%

Global Tactical Asset Allocation 2.5%

Balanced Fund 0.0%

Income Oriented Portfolio 2.5%

MI Based Private Equity 0.0%

Short Term / Cash 0.0% TOTAL 100.0%

Information above received from the Bogdahn group. Cash allocation is targeted at zero.



The arithmetic expected return developed from this asset allocation is shown in the table below. The CMAM begins with the nominal expected return from each consultant (column 2), takes out each consultant’s price inflation assumption (column 3) to arrive at the real return (column 4). We then incorporate the price inflation assumption of 2.50% (column 5) to get the adjusted nominal return (column 6). Note that this return has not yet been adjusted for risk or “volatility drag.” We have shown the standard deviation of returns as the investment risk (column 9).

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

1 6.87% 2.50% 4.37% 2.50% 6.87% 0.00% 6.87% 12.44%

2 6.89% 2.20% 4.69% 2.50% 7.19% 0.00% 7.19% 11.09%

3 7.27% 2.25% 5.02% 2.50% 7.52% 0.00% 7.52% 12.67%

4 7.37% 2.25% 5.12% 2.50% 7.62% 0.00% 7.62% 12.82%

5 7.54% 2.26% 5.28% 2.50% 7.78% 0.00% 7.78% 11.48%

6 6.87% 1.56% 5.31% 2.50% 7.81% 0.00% 7.81% 12.23%

7 7.32% 2.00% 5.32% 2.50% 7.82% 0.00% 7.82% 12.23%

8 8.10% 2.20% 5.90% 2.50% 8.40% 0.00% 8.40% 13.30%

Average 7.28% 2.15% 5.12% 2.50% 7.62% 0.00% 7.62% 12.28%

Standard Deviation

of Expected Return (1-Year)

Expected Nominal

Return Net of Expenses

(6)-(7)Investment Consultant

Investment Consultant

Expected Nominal Return


Inflation Assumption

Expected Real Return

(2)–(3)

Actuary Inflation

AssumptionInvestment Expenses

Expected Nominal Return (4)+(5)

The average expected nominal return from column 8 is 7.62%. Note that the expected rate of return shown in the table above represents the average future expected return which is higher than the median future expected return. Setting the valuation assumption at this return means that over time the average accumulated assets will grow at this rate. However, in any given year it is less than 50% likely that this return will be achieved. From the perspective of the Actuarial Standards of Practice, this is a reasonable assumption. However, adjusting for volatility to arrive at the median (as we do on the next page) is also reasonable.



Next we compare the probabilities of achieving returns over a 20-year horizon. We compute the 40th, 50th, and 60th percentiles of returns as well as the probability of achieving the current assumption of 7.75% over a 20-year horizon.

Probability of exceeding



40th 50th 60th 7.75% 7.50% 7.00%

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (6)

1 5.46% 6.16% 6.86% 28.28% 31.38% 38.00%

2 6.00% 6.62% 7.24% 32.34% 36.03% 43.82%

3 6.07% 6.78% 7.49% 36.49% 39.86% 46.83%

4 6.14% 6.86% 7.58% 37.76% 41.12% 48.05%

5 6.53% 7.17% 7.82% 41.05% 44.89% 52.70%

6 6.44% 7.12% 7.81% 40.82% 44.43% 51.76%

7 6.45% 7.13% 7.82% 40.97% 44.58% 51.92%

8 6.85% 7.59% 8.34% 47.80% 51.19% 57.94%

Average 6.24% 6.93% 7.62% 38.19% 41.69% 48.88%


Distribution of 20-Year Average Geometric Net Nominal Return

The 50th percentile return is also the geometric average return net of investment expenses. This is the expected return adjusted for volatility drag and is a reasonable rate of return for purposes of the valuation. The average of 50th percentile returns is 6.93% per year as shown in column (3). Recommendation We recommend lowering the assumed rate of return below the current 7.75%. For purposes of this study, we have shown economic scenarios with rate of return assumptions of 7.50% and 7.00%, net of investment expenses. Our recommended range for assumptions would be 7.00% to 7.50%. An assumption at the upper end of this range carries with it the risk that it may not be reasonable next year. Our preferred choice would be 7.00%. Disclosures The results in this report are based on Capital Market Assumptions (CMAs) from eight national investment consulting firms. The actual decisions of appropriate assets classes were developed based on the Plan’s investment policy, and are net of investment expenses with no alpha expectations. These results will vary from information provided by WCERS’s investment consultant primarily due to the differing horizons provided (10, 12, 15, 20 and 30 years) and differing distinctions and categorizations amongst investment classes as well as minor variations in the underlying models. The information is not intended to be construed as investment advice.



Reviewing the Salary Increase (due Merit and Seniority) Assumptions Pay increases granted to active members typically consist of two pieces:

1. An across-the-board, economic type of increase granted to most or all members of the group. This increase is typically tied to wage inflation or cost-of-living changes, and

2. An increase as a result of merit and seniority. This increase is typically related to the

performance of an individual and includes promotions and increased years of experience. The assumption for across-the-board increases is the pay inflation assumption discussed in the wage inflation section. The merit and seniority portion of pay increases are discussed in this section. We reviewed the merit and seniority assumption by examining the average pay as of September 30, 2015 by both age and service. This analysis suggests a need to change the merit/seniority pay increase assumption. Recommendation We recommend revising the assumed rates of merit and longevity as indicated on page 49-52.

SECTION B S U M M A RY OF T H E VA L U AT I O N R E S U LT S


SUMMARY OF VALUATION RESULTS The table below describes hypothetical valuation results at September 30, 2015 with present and new decrement assumptions with alternate economic assumptions.

PresentDefined Benefit Plans - Demographic Current 7.50%/3.00% With

Contributions for 7.75%/3.50% 7.75%/3.50% 7.50%/3.00% 7.00%/3.00% Actual Frozen Benefits^

Normal CostService allowances 3.74% 3.65% 3.65% 4.13% 3.65% Disability allowances 0.85% 0.75% 0.78% 0.82% 0.78% Survivor allowances 0.10% 0.16% 0.17% 0.19% 0.17% Termination benefits

Deferred service allowances 0.75% 0.91% 0.96% 1.07% 0.96% Refunds of member contributions 1.09% 0.96% 0.98% 0.95% 0.98%

Administrative Expense 0.00% 2.56% 2.56% 2.56% 2.56% Total Normal Cost 6.53% 8.99% 9.10% 9.72% 9.10%

Less Portion Paid by Members* 6.50% 6.50% 6.50% 6.50% 6.50%

County Defined Benefit Normal Cost 0.03% 2.49% 2.60% 3.22% 2.60%

Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability# 46.69% 47.78% 51.44% 53.86% 51.03%

Total Computed Employer Rate 46.72% 50.27% 54.04% 57.08% 53.63%

Minimum Dollar Amounts 47,467,616$ 51,219,636$ 54,532,989$ 57,596,660$ $ 54,119,078

Alternates

CountyNew Demographic Assumptions

Economic Assumptions

* Weighted average of various contribution Rates. # Amortized over 22 years as a level dollar amount for Airport and as a level percent-of-pay for County. ^ Final frozen benefits totaling $1,843,566.49 monthly for 1,280 of the 1,878 active members were provided by the System.

Final frozen benefits for the remaining active members were estimated.

Contributions for fiscal year 2017 have already been determined based on the September 30, 2015 valuation. Contribution rates for fiscal year 2018 will be based on the September 30, 2016 valuation. The September 30, 2016 valuation will be the first opportunity to see the effect of the new assumptions on computed employer contribution rates. Experience gains or losses incurred during 2016 will also affect FY 2018 contribution rates. We recommend that the Board Consider:

• Adopting the demographic assumptions presented in this report • Adopting either the 7.50%/3.00% or the 7.00%/3.00% economic combinations illustrated

above. Alternatively, an intermediate assumption of 7.25%/3.00% could be adopted. We would not be opposed to lowering the investment return assumption to a value below 7%. If the Board wishes to do so, please let us know and we will review the effect on contributions. Effective October 1, 2015, benefits going forward were reduced for nearly all WCERS County plan members. Accrued benefits were frozen on the same date. We received a sample of frozen benefit calculations (about 20 people) that were used as a proxy for the impact of this change. The System was in the process of computing frozen benefits with the intention of reporting them to the Actuary for the next valuation cycle, at which point the actual frozen benefits for all members will be used and the proxy will be removed. However, the relative magnitude of the experience study changes would be similar to the differences shown above in the “Current” and “Alternates” columns. The final column incorporates frozen benefits supplied by WCERS staff in November 2016 as described in the footnote above.


SUMMARY OF VALUATION RESULTS The table below describes hypothetical valuation results at September 30, 2015 with present and new decrement assumptions with alternate economic assumptions.

PresentDefined Benefit Plans - Demographic Current

Contributions for 7.75%/3.50% 7.75%/3.50% 7.50%/3.00% 7.00%/3.00%

Normal CostService allowances 5.26% 5.17% 5.11% 5.81% Disability allowances 0.73% 0.64% 0.65% 0.70% Survivor allowances 0.12% 0.22% 0.22% 0.24% Termination benefits

Deferred service allowances 0.51% 0.52% 0.55% 0.65% Refunds of member contributions 0.14% 0.15% 0.15% 0.15%

Administrative Expense 0.00% 1.15% 1.15% 1.15% Total Normal Cost 6.76% 7.85% 7.83% 8.70%

Less Portion Paid by Members* 1.14% 1.13% 1.13% 1.13%

WCAA Defined Benefit Normal Cost 5.62% 6.72% 6.70% 7.57%

Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability# 14.91% 15.94% 16.85% 19.02%

Total Computed Employer Rate 20.53% 22.66% 23.55% 26.59%

Minimum Dollar Amounts 5,693,734$ 6,244,926$ 6,427,443$ 7,257,319$

Alternates

AirportNew Demographic Assumptions

Economic Assumptions

*Weighted average of various contribution Rates. #Amortized over 22 years as a level dollar amount for Airport and as a level percent of pay for County.

Contributions for fiscal year 2017 have already been determined based on the September 30, 2015 valuation. Contribution rates for fiscal year 2018 will be based on the September 30, 2016 valuation. The September 30, 2016 valuation will be the first opportunity to see the effect of the new assumptions on computed employer contribution rates. Experience gains or losses incurred during 2016 will also affect FY 2018 contribution rates. We recommend that the Board Consider:

• Adopting the demographic assumptions presented in this report • Adopting either the 7.50%/3.00% or the 7.00%/3.00% economic combinations illustrated

above. Alternatively, an intermediate assumption of 7.25%/3.00% could be adopted. We would not be opposed to lowering the investment return assumption to a value below 7%. If the Board wishes to do so, please let us know and we will review the effect on contributions.

SECTION C

WI T H D R AWA L E X P E R I E N C E – S E RV I C E B A S E D


SERVICE-BASED WITHDRAWAL EXPERIENCE AIRPORT – NOT PUBLIC SAFETY

PLAN 5 ONLY There were 11 withdrawals and 164 years of exposure included in the service-based withdrawal investigation. Withdrawals are separations from active member status for a reason other than disability, death, or retirement.

Service CrudeIndex Withdrawals Exposure Rates Old New Old New

1 1 10 0.1000 0.1900 0.1900 2 2 2 1 23 0.0435 0.1600 0.1600 4 4 3 - 22 0.0000 0.1200 0.1200 3 3 4 3 45 0.0667 0.1100 0.1100 5 5 5 6 64 0.0938 0.1000 0.1000 6 6

Totals 11 164 0.0671 0.1220 0.1220 20 20

ExpectedSample Rates Withdrawals

This group size is too small to suggest significant changes to the current assumptions.


SERVICE-BASED WITHDRAWAL EXPERIENCE AIRPORT – NOT PUBLIC SAFETY (CONCLUDED)

PLAN 5 ONLY

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

2 3 4 5ServiceActual Experience Present Assumptions Proposed Assumptions


SERVICE-BASED WITHDRAWAL EXPERIENCE AIRPORT – PUBLIC SAFETY

PLAN 5 ONLY There were 1 withdrawal and 34 years of exposure included in the service-based withdrawal investigation. Withdrawals are separations from active member status for a reason other than disability, death, or retirement.


1 - 4 0.0000 0.1800 0.1800 1 1 2 - 5 0.0000 0.1800 0.1800 1 1 3 - 3 0.0000 0.0900 0.0900 - - 4 1 8 0.1250 0.0700 0.0700 1 1 5 - 14 0.0000 0.0600 0.0600 1 1

Totals 1 34 0.0294 0.1176 0.1176 4 4


This group size is too small to suggest significant changes to the current assumptions.


SERVICE-BASED WITHDRAWAL EXPERIENCE AIRPORT – PUBLIC SAFETY (CONCLUDED)

PLAN 5 ONLY

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.20



SERVICE-BASED WITHDRAWAL EXPERIENCE COUNTY (EXCLUDING AIRPORT) – NOT PUBLIC SAFETY

PLAN 5 AND 6 ONLY There were 262 withdrawals and 1,521 years of exposure included in the service-based withdrawal investigation. Withdrawals are separations from active member status for a reason other than disability, death, or retirement.


1 63 268 0.2351 0.1900 0.1900 51 51 2 80 417 0.1918 0.1600 0.1600 67 67 3 54 332 0.1627 0.1200 0.1200 40 40 4 34 258 0.1318 0.1100 0.1100 28 28 5 31 246 0.1260 0.1000 0.1000 25 25

Totals 262 1,521 0.1723 0.1387 0.1387 211 211


Experience was in line with current assumptions. No changes are recommended.


SERVICE-BASED WITHDRAWAL EXPERIENCE COUNTY (EXCLUDING AIRPORT) – NOT PUBLIC SAFETY (CONCLUDED)

PLAN 5 AND 6 ONLY

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25



SERVICE-BASED WITHDRAWAL EXPERIENCE COUNTY (EXCLUDING AIRPORT) – PUBLIC SAFETY

PLAN 5 AND 6 ONLY There were 43 withdrawals and 372 years of exposure included in the service-based withdrawal investigation. Withdrawals are separations from active member status for a reason other than disability, death, or retirement.


1 4 35 0.1143 0.1800 0.1800 6 6 2 13 70 0.1857 0.1800 0.1800 13 13 3 11 73 0.1507 0.0900 0.0900 7 7 4 11 93 0.1183 0.0700 0.0700 7 7 5 4 101 0.0396 0.0600 0.0600 6 6

Totals 43 372 0.1156 0.1048 0.1048 39 39


Experience was in line with current assumptions. No changes are recommended.


SERVICE-BASED WITHDRAWAL EXPERIENCE COUNTY (EXCLUDING AIRPORT) – PUBLIC SAFETY (CONCLUDED)

PLAN 5 AND 6 ONLY

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.20


SECTION C

WI T H D R AWA L E X P E R I E N C E – A G E B AS E D


AGE-BASED WITHDRAWAL EXPERIENCE AIRPORT – NOT PUBLIC SAFETY

PLAN 5 ONLY There were 23 withdrawals and 810 years of exposure included in the age-based withdrawal investigation. Withdrawals are separations from active member status for a reason other than disability, death, or retirement.

CrudeAge Withdrawals Exposure Rates Old New Old New

Under 20 - - N/A 0.0950 0.0950 - - 20-24 - - N/A 0.0950 0.0950 - - 25-29 1 17 0.0588 0.0925 0.0925 1 1 30-34 4 66 0.0606 0.0490 0.0600 4 4 35-39 5 123 0.0407 0.0470 0.0600 6 7 40-44 - 116 0.0000 0.0439 0.0600 5 7 45-49 5 171 0.0292 0.0337 0.0337 6 6 50-54 5 184 0.0272 0.0289 0.0289 6 5 55-59 3 133 0.0226 0.0240 0.0240 3 3 Totals 23 810 0.0284 0.0383 0.0407 31 33

Ref 1229 1398

* Sample rates are taken from midpoint of age group.

** "Expected withdrawals - New" is calculated as the sum of rates applied to exposure at individual ages. "Expected withdrawals - Old" is the sum of actual probabilities applied in the valuation.

ExpectedSample Rates* Withdrawals**

This group size is too small to suggest significant changes to the current assumptions. Only minor changes are being suggested.


AGE-BASED WITHDRAWAL EXPERIENCE AIRPORT – NOT PUBLIC SAFETY (CONCLUDED)

PLAN 5 ONLY

0.000.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.10

20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59Age

Actual Experience Present Assumptions Proposed Assumptions


AGE-BASED WITHDRAWAL EXPERIENCE AIRPORT – PUBLIC SAFETY

PLAN 5 ONLY There were 6 withdrawals and 528 years of exposure included in the age-based withdrawal investigation. Withdrawals are separations from active member status for a reason other than disability, death, or retirement.


Under 20 - - N/A 0.0450 0.0414 - - 20-24 - - N/A 0.0450 0.0414 - - 25-29 - 11 0.0000 0.0430 0.0396 1 - 30-34 - 49 0.0000 0.0250 0.0230 1 1 35-39 2 64 0.0313 0.0240 0.0221 2 1 40-44 1 134 0.0075 0.0230 0.0212 3 3 45-49 2 171 0.0117 0.0200 0.0184 4 3 50-54 1 92 0.0109 0.0150 0.0138 2 1 55-59 - 7 0.0000 0.0100 0.0092 - - Totals 6 528 0.0114 0.0246 0.0170 13 9

Ref 1230 1230




This group size is too small to suggest significant changes to the current assumptions. Only minor changes are being suggested.


AGE-BASED WITHDRAWAL EXPERIENCE AIRPORT – PUBLIC SAFETY (CONCLUDED)

PLAN 5 ONLY

0.000.010.010.020.020.030.030.040.040.050.05

20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59Age



AGE-BASED WITHDRAWAL EXPERIENCE COUNTY (EXCLUDING AIRPORT) – NOT PUBLIC SAFETY

PLAN 5 AND 6 ONLY There were 253 withdrawals and 3,508 years of exposure included in the age-based withdrawal investigation. Withdrawals are separations from active member status for a reason other than disability, death, or retirement.


Under 20 - - N/A 0.0950 0.0950 - - 20-24 - - N/A 0.0950 0.0950 - - 25-29 5 40 0.1250 0.0925 0.0925 3 3 30-34 28 265 0.1057 0.0490 0.0600 14 16 35-39 38 450 0.0844 0.0470 0.0600 21 27 40-44 62 585 0.1060 0.0439 0.0600 25 35 45-49 44 806 0.0546 0.0337 0.0337 28 28 50-54 41 834 0.0492 0.0289 0.0289 25 24 55-59 35 528 0.0663 0.0240 0.0240 11 10 Totals 253 3,508 0.0721 0.0362 0.0408 127 143

Ref 1229 1398




There were more withdrawals than expected during the experience period. Changes are being suggested that partially reflect experience.


AGE-BASED WITHDRAWAL EXPERIENCE COUNTY (EXCLUDING AIRPORT) – NOT PUBLIC SAFETY (CONCLUDED)

PLAN 5 AND 6 ONLY

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59Age



AGE-BASED WITHDRAWAL EXPERIENCE COUNTY (EXCLUDING AIRPORT) – PUBLIC SAFETY

PLAN 5 AND 6 ONLY There were 53 withdrawals and 2,629 years of exposure included in the age-based withdrawal investigation. Withdrawals are separations from active member status for a reason other than disability, death, or retirement.


Under 20 - - N/A 0.0450 0.0414 - - 20-24 - - N/A 0.0450 0.0414 - - 25-29 5 75 0.0667 0.0430 0.0396 3 3 30-34 18 398 0.0452 0.0250 0.0230 11 10 35-39 11 492 0.0224 0.0240 0.0221 12 11 40-44 8 672 0.0119 0.0230 0.0212 15 14 45-49 5 590 0.0085 0.0200 0.0184 12 11 50-54 6 313 0.0192 0.0150 0.0138 5 4 55-59 - 89 0.0000 0.0100 0.0092 1 1 Totals 53 2,629 0.0202 0.0224 0.0205 59 54

Ref 1230 1230




Experience was in line with current assumptions, only minor changes are being suggested.


AGE-BASED WITHDRAWAL EXPERIENCE COUNTY (EXCLUDING AIRPORT) – PUBLIC SAFETY (CONCLUDED)

PLAN 5 AND 6 ONLY

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59Age


SECTION D O R D I N A RY DI S A B I L I T Y E X P E R I E N C E


ORDINARY DISABILITY EXPERIENCE AIRPORT – NOT PUBLIC SAFETY

PLAN 5 ONLY There were 0 disability benefit claims reported for the 5-year period.

CrudeAge Disabilities Exposure Rates Old New Old New

Under 20 - - N/A 0.0005 0.0005 - - 20-24 - - N/A 0.0005 0.0005 - - 25-29 - - N/A 0.0005 0.0005 - - 30-34 - 8 0.0000 0.0004 0.0004 - - 35-39 - 57 0.0000 0.0009 0.0009 - - 40-44 - 59 0.0000 0.0018 0.0018 - - 45-49 - 110 0.0000 0.0032 0.0032 - - 50-54 - 126 0.0000 0.0047 0.0047 1 1 55-59 - 63 0.0000 0.0063 0.0063 - - Totals - 423 0.0000 0.0024 0.0024 1 1

Ref 8 8

*** "Expected disabilities - New" is calculated as the sum of rates applied to exposure at individual ages.

"Expected disabilities - Old" is the sum of actual probabilities applied in the valuation.

ExpectedSample Rates* Disabilities**

Sample rates are taken from midpoint of age group.

RATES OF ORDINARY DISABLED

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.01

0.01

20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59Age



ORDINARY DISABILITY EXPERIENCE AIRPORT – PUBLIC SAFETY

PLAN 5 ONLY There was 1 disability benefit claim reported for the 5-year period.


Under 20 - - N/A 0.0006 0.0006 - - 20-24 - - N/A 0.0006 0.0006 - - 25-29 - - N/A 0.0006 0.0006 - - 30-34 - 11 0.0000 0.0004 0.0004 - - 35-39 - 52 0.0000 0.0010 0.0010 - - 40-44 - 127 0.0000 0.0022 0.0022 - - 45-49 1 165 0.0061 0.0038 0.0038 1 1 50-54 - 88 0.0000 0.0056 0.0056 - - 55-59 - 7 0.0000 0.0075 0.0075 - - Totals 1 450 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022 1 1

Ref 8 8






0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59Age



ORDINARY DISABILITY EXPERIENCE

COUNTY (EXCLUDING AIRPORT) – NOT PUBLIC SAFETY PLAN 5 AND 6 ONLY

There were 2 disability benefit claims reported for the 5-year period.


Under 20 - - N/A 0.0005 0.0005 - - 20-24 - - N/A 0.0005 0.0005 - - 25-29 - 10 0.0000 0.0005 0.0005 - - 30-34 - 107 0.0000 0.0004 0.0004 - - 35-39 - 295 0.0000 0.0009 0.0009 - - 40-44 - 436 0.0000 0.0018 0.0018 1 1 45-49 - 636 0.0000 0.0032 0.0032 2 2 50-54 - 689 0.0000 0.0047 0.0047 3 3 55-59 2 405 0.0049 0.0063 0.0063 3 3 Totals 2 2,578 0.0008 0.0035 0.0035 9 9

Ref 8 8






0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.01

0.01

20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59Age



ORDINARY DISABILITY EXPERIENCE COUNTY (EXCLUDING AIRPORT) – PUBLIC SAFETY

PLAN 5 AND 6 ONLY There were 3 disability benefit claims reported for the 5-year period.


Under 20 - - N/A 0.0006 0.0006 - - 20-24 - - N/A 0.0006 0.0006 - - 25-29 - 8 0.0000 0.0006 0.0006 - - 30-34 - 197 0.0000 0.0004 0.0004 - - 35-39 - 357 0.0000 0.0010 0.0010 - - 40-44 1 604 0.0017 0.0022 0.0022 1 1 45-49 1 554 0.0018 0.0038 0.0038 2 2 50-54 - 292 0.0000 0.0056 0.0056 2 2 55-59 1 75 0.0133 0.0075 0.0075 1 1 Totals 3 2,087 0.0014 0.0029 0.0029 6 6

Ref 8 8






0.00

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59Age


SECTION D D U T Y D I S A BI L I T Y E X P E R I E N C E


DUTY DISABILITY EXPERIENCE AIRPORT – NOT PUBLIC SAFETY

PLAN 5 ONLY There was 1 duty disability benefit claims reported for the 5-year period.


Under 20 - - N/A 0.0003 0.0003 - - 20-24 - 4 0.0000 0.0003 0.0003 - - 25-29 - 40 0.0000 0.0003 0.0003 - - 30-34 - 97 0.0000 0.0002 0.0002 - - 35-39 - 156 0.0000 0.0004 0.0004 - - 40-44 - 126 0.0000 0.0009 0.0009 - - 45-49 1 190 0.0053 0.0016 0.0016 - - 50-54 - 208 0.0000 0.0023 0.0023 - - 55-59 - 143 0.0000 0.0031 0.0031 - - Totals 1 964 0.0010 0.0000 0.0000 - -

Ref 8 8





RATES OF DUTY DISABLED

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.01

20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59Age



DUTY DISABILITY EXPERIENCE AIRPORT – PUBLIC SAFETY

PLAN 5 ONLY There were 0 duty disability benefit claims reported for the 5-year period.


Under 20 - - N/A 0.0004 0.0004 - - 20-24 - - N/A 0.0004 0.0004 - - 25-29 - 22 0.0000 0.0004 0.0004 - - 30-34 - 60 0.0000 0.0003 0.0003 - - 35-39 - 73 0.0000 0.0007 0.0007 - - 40-44 - 135 0.0000 0.0014 0.0014 - - 45-49 - 173 0.0000 0.0025 0.0025 - - 50-54 - 92 0.0000 0.0037 0.0037 - - 55-59 - 7 0.0000 0.0050 0.0050 - - Totals - 562 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 - -

Ref 8 8






0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.01

20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59Age



DUTY DISABILITY EXPERIENCE

COUNTY (EXCLUDING AIRPORT) – NOT PUBLIC SAFETY PLAN 5 AND 6 ONLY

There were 3 duty disability benefit claims reported for the 5-year period.


Under 20 - - N/A 0.0003 0.0003 - - 20-24 - 47 0.0000 0.0003 0.0003 - - 25-29 - 239 0.0000 0.0003 0.0003 - - 30-34 - 551 0.0000 0.0002 0.0002 - - 35-39 - 608 0.0000 0.0004 0.0004 - - 40-44 1 804 0.0012 0.0009 0.0009 1 1 45-49 - 1,020 0.0000 0.0016 0.0016 2 2 50-54 1 1,000 0.0010 0.0023 0.0023 2 2 55-59 1 676 0.0015 0.0031 0.0031 2 2 Totals 3 4,945 0.0006 0.0014 0.0014 7 7

Ref 8 8






0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59Age



DUTY DISABILITY EXPERIENCE COUNTY (EXCLUDING AIRPORT) – PUBLIC SAFETY

PLAN 5 AND 6 ONLY There were 6 duty disability benefit claims reported for the 5-year period.


Under 20 - - N/A 0.0004 0.0004 - - 20-24 - 30 0.0000 0.0004 0.0004 - - 25-29 - 180 0.0000 0.0004 0.0004 - - 30-34 - 511 0.0000 0.0003 0.0003 - - 35-39 1 536 0.0019 0.0007 0.0007 - - 40-44 2 685 0.0029 0.0014 0.0014 1 1 45-49 1 604 0.0017 0.0025 0.0025 2 2 50-54 2 326 0.0061 0.0037 0.0037 1 1 55-59 - 113 0.0000 0.0050 0.0050 1 1 Totals 6 2,985 0.0020 0.0017 0.0017 5 5

Ref 8 8






0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.01

0.01

20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59Age


SECTION E R E T I R E M E N T E X P E R I E N CE


WCERS AGE & SERVICE AIRPORT – NOT PUBLIC SAFETY

PLAN 5 ONLY

Although males and females were studied separately, the proposed rates are applied to all members. Slight modifications are being suggested.

CrudeAge Retirements Exposure Rates Old New Old New

55 1 12 0.0833 0.3000 0.2500 4 3 56 - 9 0.0000 0.2000 0.2000 2 2 57 1 9 0.1111 0.1500 0.2000 1 2 58 - 7 0.0000 0.3000 0.2000 2 1 59 2 4 0.5000 0.3000 0.3000 1 1 60 - 5 0.0000 0.4000 0.3000 2 2 61 5 10 0.5000 0.3000 0.4000 3 4 62 2 5 0.4000 0.3000 0.4000 2 2 63 - 3 0.0000 0.3000 0.4000 1 1 64 - 2 0.0000 0.2000 0.5000 0 1 65 1 8 0.1250 0.3000 0.3000 2 2 66 1 4 0.2500 0.3000 0.2500 1 1 67 - 3 0.0000 0.2000 0.1000 1 - 68 - 2 0.0000 0.4000 0.1500 1 - 69 - 1 0.0000 0.8000 0.8000 1 1 70 - - N/A 1.0000 1.0000 - - 71 - - N/A 1.0000 1.0000 - - 72 - - N/A 1.0000 1.0000 - - 73 - - N/A 1.0000 1.0000 - - 74 - - N/A 1.0000 1.0000 - -

Totals 13 84 0.1548 0.2815 0.2738 24 23 75 & Over - - N/A - -

Total 13 84 0.1548 0.2815 0.2738 24 23

*"Expected retirements - New" is calculated as the sum of rates applied to exposure at individual ages. "Expected retirements - Old" is the sum of actual probabilities applied in the valuation.

ExpectedSample Rates Retirements*

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

Age



WCERS SERVICE-BASED AIRPORT – NOT PUBLIC SAFETY

PLAN 5 ONLY


Service CrudeYears* Retirements Exposure Rates Old New Old New

30 - - N/A 0.3000 0.3000 - - 31 - - N/A 0.2000 0.2000 - - 32 - - N/A 0.1500 0.1500 - - 33 - - N/A 0.3000 0.3000 - - 34 - - N/A 0.3000 0.3000 - - 35 - - N/A 0.4000 0.4000 - - 36 - - N/A 0.3000 0.3000 - - 37 - - N/A 0.3000 0.3000 - - 38 - - N/A 0.3000 0.3000 - - 39 - - N/A 0.2000 0.2000 - - 40+ - - N/A 1.0000 1.0000 - -

Totals - - N/A - -

**"Expected retirements - New" is calculated as the sum of rates applied to exposure at individual ages. "Expected retirements - Old" is the sum of actual probabilities applied in the valuation.

ExpectedSample Rates Retirements**

*Measured as Integer Service Nearest Whole Year at time of decrement

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

ServiceActual Experience Present Assumptions Proposed Assumptions


WCERS AGE & SERVICE AIRPORT – PUBLIC SAFETY

PLAN 5 ONLY



55 1 3 0.3333 0.2500 0.2500 1 1 56 - 4 0.0000 0.2500 0.2500 1 1 57 - 4 0.0000 0.2500 0.2500 1 1 58 - 4 0.0000 0.2500 0.2500 1 1 59 1 4 0.2500 0.2500 0.2500 1 1 60 - 3 0.0000 0.2500 0.2500 1 1 61 - 2 0.0000 0.2500 0.2500 1 1 62 - - N/A 0.2500 0.5000 - - 63 - 1 0.0000 0.2700 0.2700 0 - 64 - 1 0.0000 0.2700 0.2700 0 - 65 1 1 1.0000 0.2700 0.5000 0 1 66 - - N/A 0.2700 0.2700 - - 67 - - N/A 0.2700 0.2700 - - 68 - - N/A 0.3000 0.3000 - - 69 - - N/A 0.3000 0.3000 - - 70 - - N/A 1.0000 1.0000 - - 71 - - N/A 1.0000 1.0000 - - 72 - - N/A 1.0000 1.0000 - - 73 - - N/A 1.0000 1.0000 - - 74 - - N/A 1.0000 1.0000 - -

Totals 3 27 0.1111 0.2467 0.2963 7 8 75 & Over - - N/A - -

Total 3 27 0.1111 0.2467 0.2963 7 8



0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

Age



WCERS SERVICE-BASED AIRPORT – PUBLIC SAFETY

PLAN 5 ONLY


30 - 2 0.0000 0.2200 0.4000 - 1 31 1 2 0.5000 0.2000 0.3000 - 1 32 - - N/A 0.2000 0.2000 - - 33 - - N/A 0.3000 0.3000 - - 34 - - N/A 0.4000 0.4000 - - 35 - - N/A 0.5000 0.5000 - - 36 - - N/A 0.2500 0.2500 - - 37 - - N/A 0.2500 0.2500 - - 38 - - N/A 0.2500 0.2500 - - 39 - - N/A 0.2500 0.2500 - - 40 - - N/A 1.0000 1.0000 - -

Totals 1 4 0.2500 0.0000 0.5000 - 2




0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20



WCERS AGE & SERVICE COUNTY (EXCLUDING AIRPORT) – NOT PUBLIC SAFETY

PLAN 5 AND 6 ONLY



55 13 48 0.2708 0.3000 0.2500 16 12 56 15 45 0.3333 0.2000 0.2000 11 9 57 12 34 0.3529 0.1500 0.2000 6 7 58 9 32 0.2813 0.3000 0.2000 10 6 59 9 24 0.3750 0.3000 0.3000 8 7 60 14 43 0.3256 0.4000 0.3000 17 13 61 18 45 0.4000 0.3000 0.4000 16 18 62 18 40 0.4500 0.3000 0.4000 15 16 63 14 26 0.5385 0.3000 0.4000 8 10 64 8 13 0.6154 0.2000 0.5000 4 7 65 13 31 0.4194 0.3000 0.3000 10 9 66 6 24 0.2500 0.3000 0.2500 8 6 67 2 25 0.0800 0.2000 0.1000 5 3 68 4 25 0.1600 0.4000 0.1500 11 4 69 7 23 0.3043 0.8000 0.8000 18 18 70 7 20 0.3500 1.0000 1.0000 20 20 71 3 14 0.2143 1.0000 1.0000 14 14 72 - 9 0.0000 1.0000 1.0000 9 9 73 6 9 0.6667 1.0000 1.0000 9 9 74 2 3 0.6667 1.0000 1.0000 3 3

Totals 180 533 0.3377 0.4085 0.3752 218 200 75 & Over 5 16 0.3125 16 16

Total 185 549 0.3370 0.4258 0.3934 234 216



0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

Age



WCERS SERVICE-BASED COUNTY (EXCLUDING AIRPORT) – NOT PUBLIC SAFETY

PLAN 5 AND 6 ONLY

Although males and females were studied separately, the proposed rates are applied to all members.


30 1 8 0.1250 0.3000 0.3000 2 2 31 3 4 0.7500 0.2000 0.2000 1 1 32 1 1 1.0000 0.1500 0.1500 - - 33 - - N/A 0.3000 0.3000 - - 34 - - N/A 0.3000 0.3000 - - 35 - - N/A 0.4000 0.4000 - - 36 - 1 0.0000 0.3000 0.3000 - - 37 - 1 0.0000 0.3000 0.3000 - - 38 - - N/A 0.3000 0.3000 - - 39 - - N/A 0.2000 0.2000 - - 40 - 1 0.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1 1 41 2 3 0.6667 1.0000 1.0000 3 3 42 - - N/A 1.0000 1.0000 - - 43 - - N/A 1.0000 1.0000 - - 44 - - N/A 1.0000 1.0000 - - 45 - - N/A 1.0000 1.0000 - - 46 - - N/A 1.0000 1.0000 - - 47 - - N/A 1.0000 1.0000 - - 48 - - N/A 1.0000 1.0000 - - 49 - - N/A 1.0000 1.0000 - -

Other - - N/A - - Totals 7 19 0.3684 0.3684 0.3684 7 7



* Measured as Integer Service Nearest Whole Year at time of decrement

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

Service



WCERS AGE & SERVICE COUNTY (EXCLUDING AIRPORT) – PUBLIC SAFETY

PLAN 5 AND 6 ONLY



55 3 12 0.2500 0.2500 0.2500 3 3 56 1 9 0.1111 0.2500 0.2500 2 2 57 4 6 0.6667 0.2500 0.2500 2 2 58 2 4 0.5000 0.2500 0.2500 1 1 59 3 5 0.6000 0.2500 0.2500 1 1 60 3 10 0.3000 0.2500 0.2500 3 3 61 1 6 0.1667 0.2500 0.2500 2 2 62 4 6 0.6667 0.2500 0.5000 2 3 63 1 2 0.5000 0.2700 0.2700 1 1 64 - 1 0.0000 0.2700 0.2700 0 - 65 1 2 0.5000 0.2700 0.5000 1 1 66 - 1 0.0000 0.2700 0.2700 0 - 67 - 1 0.0000 0.2700 0.2700 0 - 68 - - N/A 0.3000 0.3000 - - 69 - - N/A 0.3000 0.3000 - - 70 - - N/A 1.0000 1.0000 - - 71 - - N/A 1.0000 1.0000 - - 72 - - N/A 1.0000 1.0000 - - 73 - - N/A 1.0000 1.0000 - - 74 - - N/A 1.0000 1.0000 - -

Totals 23 65 0.3538 0.2829 0.2923 18 19 75 & Over - - N/A - -

Total 23 65 0.3538 0.2829 0.2923 18 19



0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

Age



WCERS SERVICE-BASED COUNTY (EXCLUDING AIRPORT) – PUBLIC SAFETY

PLAN 5 AND 6 ONLY



30 2 2 1.0000 0.2200 0.4000 - 1 31 - 1 0.0000 0.2000 0.3000 - - 32 1 1 1.0000 0.2000 0.2000 - - 33 - - N/A 0.3000 0.3000 - - 34 - - N/A 0.4000 0.4000 - - 35 - - N/A 0.5000 0.5000 - - 36 - - N/A 0.2500 0.2500 - - 37 - - N/A 0.2500 0.2500 - - 38 - - N/A 0.2500 0.2500 - - 39 - - N/A 0.2500 0.2500 - - 40 - - N/A 1.0000 1.0000 - -

Totals 3 4 0.7500 0.0000 0.2500 - 1




0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20


SECTION F S A L A RY I N CR E A S E S


AGE-BASED MERIT & LONGEVITY AIRPORT – NOT PUBLIC SAFETY PAY INCREASE ASSUMPTIONS

PLAN 5 ONLY

Age GroupBeginning

of Year Number Actual Old NewUnder 25 8 14.65 % 4.30 % 4.30 %

25-29 36 1.61 % 3.25 % 3.25 % 30-34 109 2.09 % 1.90 % 1.90 % 35-39 141 1.67 % 1.65 % 1.65 % 40-44 119 1.30 % 1.45 % 1.45 % 45-49 193 0.03 % 1.05 % 1.05 % 50-54 202 0.34 % 0.70 % 1.03 % 55-59 165 1.01 % 0.35 % 0.51 % 60-64 75 0.44 % 0.15 % 0.36 %

65 & Over 12 (1.23)% 0.00 % 0.00 % Total 1,060

* Sample values are selected from mid-point of age group.

Merit/Seniority % IncreaseSample Values*

The above sample values are net of market scale adjustments which is 3.5% over the experience period.


SERVICE-BASED MERIT & LONGEVITY AIRPORT – PUBLIC SAFETY PAY INCREASE ASSUMPTIONS

PLAN 5 ONLY

ServiceIndex Number Actual Old New

1 4 14.38 % 5.30 % 10.15 % 2 5 10.13 % 5.00 % 9.50 % 3 3 10.10 % 4.67 % 8.84 % 4 7 8.65 % 4.34 % 8.17 % 5 14 8.31 % 4.01 % 7.51 % 6 17 0.35 % 3.68 % 4.34 % 7 19 0.62 % 3.35 % 3.18 % 8 21 2.13 % 2.93 % 1.97 % 9 18 0.53 % 2.71 % 1.86 % 10 12 (1.38)% 2.49 % 1.75 % 11 14 (3.34)% 2.27 % 1.54 % 12 20 (0.17)% 2.05 % 1.43 % 13 22 (0.52)% 1.89 % 1.35 % 14 19 2.07 % 1.81 % 1.31 % 15 26 0.06 % 1.73 % 1.27 % 16 23 0.41 % 1.65 % 1.23 % 17 26 2.64 % 1.57 % 1.19 % 18 30 0.90 % 1.53 % 1.17 % 19 31 1.99 % 1.51 % 1.16 % 20 30 0.20 % 1.49 % 3.75 % 21 27 3.25 % 1.47 % 0.94 % 22 22 4.21 % 1.45 % 0.83 % 23 20 (4.60)% 1.44 % 0.77 % 24 23 1.57 % 1.40 % 0.75 % 25 20 0.27 % 1.36 % 0.73 % 26 30 (0.69)% 1.32 % 0.71 % 27 32 (0.70)% 1.28 % 0.69 % 28 24 1.33 % 1.21 % 0.66 % 29 14 6.57 % 1.17 % 0.00 % 30 2 0.31 % 1.13 % 0.00 % 31 - N/A 1.09 % 0.00 % 32 - N/A 1.05 % 0.00 % 33 - N/A 0.96 % 0.00 % 34 - N/A 0.82 % 0.00 % 35 - N/A 0.68 % 0.00 % 36 - N/A 0.54 % 0.00 % 37 - N/A 0.40 % 0.00 % 38 - N/A 0.00 % 0.00 % 39 - N/A 0.00 % 0.00 % 40 - N/A 0.00 % 0.00 %

Other - Total 575

Merit/Seniority % IncreaseSample Values



AGE-BASED MERIT & LONGEVITY COUNTY (EXCLUDING AIRPORT) – NOT PUBLIC SAFETY PAY INCREASE

ASSUMPTIONS PLAN 5 AND 6 ONLY

Age GroupBeginning

of Year Number Actual Old NewUnder 25 43 6.69 % 4.30 % 4.15 %

25-29 224 1.44 % 3.25 % 3.63 % 30-34 480 1.66 % 1.90 % 2.45 % 35-39 553 (0.13)% 1.65 % 1.83 % 40-44 737 (0.13)% 1.45 % 1.23 % 45-49 949 (1.51)% 1.05 % 1.03 % 50-54 937 (1.90)% 0.70 % 0.85 % 55-59 732 (1.34)% 0.35 % 0.43 % 60-64 311 (1.91)% 0.15 % 0.33 %

65 & Over 136 (2.67)% 0.00 % 0.00 % Total 5,102

* Sample values are selected from mid-point of age group.

Merit/Seniority % IncreaseSample Values*



SERVICE-BASED MERIT & LONGEVITY COUNTY (EXCLUDING AIRPORT) – PUBLIC SAFETY PAY INCREASE

ASSUMPTIONS PLAN 5 AND 6 ONLY

ServiceIndex Number Actual Old New

1 31 27.34 % 5.30 % 9.15 % 2 57 8.63 % 5.00 % 8.50 % 3 62 3.77 % 4.67 % 7.84 % 4 82 10.73 % 4.34 % 7.17 % 5 97 2.86 % 4.01 % 6.51 % 6 98 8.46 % 3.68 % 4.34 % 7 89 7.71 % 3.35 % 3.18 % 8 126 3.58 % 2.93 % 1.97 % 9 137 0.33 % 2.71 % 1.86 % 10 154 0.90 % 2.49 % 1.75 % 11 154 0.10 % 2.27 % 1.64 % 12 156 (2.37)% 2.05 % 1.53 % 13 123 0.92 % 1.89 % 1.45 % 14 90 2.93 % 1.81 % 1.41 % 15 90 3.35 % 1.73 % 1.37 % 16 102 1.96 % 1.65 % 1.33 % 17 109 (0.79)% 1.57 % 1.29 % 18 115 0.71 % 1.53 % 1.27 % 19 124 (1.99)% 1.51 % 1.26 % 20 126 1.01 % 1.49 % 1.25 % 21 129 2.23 % 1.47 % 0.99 % 22 125 3.25 % 1.45 % 0.98 % 23 122 0.23 % 1.44 % 0.82 % 24 115 2.44 % 1.40 % 0.80 % 25 102 2.53 % 1.36 % 0.78 % 26 75 (2.17)% 1.32 % 0.76 % 27 64 1.43 % 1.28 % 0.74 % 28 41 1.59 % 1.21 % 0.71 % 29 19 1.09 % 1.17 % 0.69 % 30 14 (9.05)% 1.13 % 0.67 % 31 6 16.45 % 1.09 % 0.65 % 32 1 (14.17)% 1.05 % 0.63 % 33 2 (4.91)% 0.96 % 0.58 % 34 1 (3.50)% 0.82 % 0.51 % 35 1 22.13 % 0.68 % 0.44 % 36 - N/A 0.54 % 0.37 % 37 - N/A 0.40 % 0.30 % 38 - N/A 0.00 % 0.10 % 39 - N/A 0.00 % 0.10 % 40 - N/A 0.00 % 0.10 %

Other - Total 2,939

Merit/Seniority % IncreaseSample Values


SECTION G S U M M A RY OF N E W A S S UM P T I O N S


ACTUARIAL ASSUMPTIONS

BASED ON 2010-2015 EXPERIENCE STUDY

WITHDRAWAL

ServiceIndex Not Public Safety Public Safety

1 0.1900 0.18002 0.1600 0.18003 0.1200 0.09004 0.1100 0.07005 0.1000 0.0600Sw 759 760

Age Not Public Safety Public Safety25 0.0935 0.043826 0.0930 0.043427 0.0925 0.043028 0.0838 0.039429 0.0751 0.035830 0.0600 0.032231 0.0600 0.028632 0.0600 0.025033 0.0600 0.024834 0.0600 0.024635 0.0600 0.024436 0.0600 0.024237 0.0600 0.024038 0.0600 0.023839 0.0600 0.023640 0.0600 0.023441 0.0600 0.023242 0.0600 0.023043 0.0600 0.022444 0.0600 0.021845 0.0379 0.021246 0.0359 0.020647 0.0337 0.020048 0.0327 0.019049 0.0317 0.018050 0.0307 0.017051 0.0297 0.016052 0.0289 0.015053 0.0279 0.014054 0.0269 0.0130Wx 1398 1230

Wx Mult 100% 92%

Less than 5 Years of Service

5 or more Years of Service


ACTUARIAL ASSUMPTIONS BASED ON 2010-2015 EXPERIENCE STUDY

DISABILITY RATES

Age Not Public Safety Public Safety20 0.08% 0.10%21 0.08% 0.10%22 0.08% 0.10%23 0.08% 0.10%24 0.08% 0.10%25 0.08% 0.10%26 0.08% 0.10%27 0.08% 0.10%28 0.07% 0.09%29 0.06% 0.08%30 0.05% 0.07%31 0.05% 0.07%32 0.05% 0.07%33 0.06% 0.08%34 0.08% 0.10%35 0.09% 0.12%36 0.11% 0.14%37 0.13% 0.17%38 0.15% 0.20%39 0.18% 0.24%40 0.21% 0.28%41 0.24% 0.32%42 0.27% 0.36%43 0.31% 0.41%44 0.35% 0.46%45 0.38% 0.51%46 0.43% 0.57%47 0.47% 0.63%48 0.52% 0.69%49 0.56% 0.75%50 0.61% 0.81%51 0.65% 0.87%52 0.70% 0.93%53 0.75% 1.00%54 0.80% 1.06%55 0.85% 1.13%56 0.89% 1.19%57 0.94% 1.25%58 0.99% 1.32%59 1.04% 1.38%60 1.08% 1.44%Hx 8 8

Mult 75% 100%

% Becoming Disabled

For Not Public Safety Members, two-thirds of disabilities are assumed to be non-duty related and the remaining one-third are assumed to be duty related. For Public Safety Members, 60% are assumed to be non-duty related and the remaining 40% are assumed to be duty related.



SALARY SCALE –NON PUBLIC SAFETY

AgeCounty (Excluding

Airport) Airport20 4.2% 4.4%21 4.2% 4.3%22 4.2% 4.3%23 4.1% 4.1%24 4.0% 4.0%25 3.9% 3.8%26 3.8% 3.5%27 3.6% 3.3%28 3.4% 3.0%29 3.2% 2.7%30 2.9% 2.4%31 2.7% 2.2%32 2.5% 1.9%33 2.3% 1.8%34 2.2% 1.8%35 2.1% 1.7%36 1.9% 1.7%37 1.8% 1.7%38 1.7% 1.6%39 1.6% 1.6%40 1.5% 1.6%41 1.4% 1.5%42 1.2% 1.5%43 1.2% 1.4%44 1.2% 1.3%45 1.1% 1.2%46 1.1% 1.2%47 1.0% 1.1%48 1.0% 1.1%49 1.0% 1.1%50 0.9% 1.1%51 0.9% 1.0%52 0.9% 1.0%53 0.8% 1.0%54 0.7% 0.9%55 0.6% 0.9%56 0.5% 0.8%57 0.4% 0.5%58 0.4% 0.5%59 0.4% 0.5%60 0.4% 0.4%Ref 480 481

% Merit Increases in Salaries Next Year


ACTUARIAL ASSUMPTIONS

BASED ON 2010-2015 EXPERIENCE STUDY

SALARY SCALE –PUBLIC SAFETY

ServiceIndex

1 9.2% 10.2%2 8.5% 9.5%3 7.8% 8.8%4 7.2% 8.2%5 6.5% 7.5%6 4.3% 4.3%7 3.2% 3.2%8 2.0% 2.0%9 1.9% 1.9%10 1.7% 1.7%11 1.6% 1.5%12 1.5% 1.4%13 1.4% 1.3%14 1.4% 1.3%15 1.4% 1.3%16 1.3% 1.2%17 1.3% 1.2%18 1.3% 1.2%19 1.3% 1.2%20 1.2% 3.7%21 1.0% 0.9%22 1.0% 0.8%23 0.8% 0.8%24 0.8% 0.8%25 0.8% 0.7%26 0.8% 0.7%27 0.7% 0.7%28 0.7% 0.7%29 0.7% 0.0%30 0.7% 0.0%31 0.6% 0.0%32 0.6% 0.0%33 0.6% 0.0%34 0.5% 0.0%35 0.4% 0.0%36 0.4% 0.0%37 0.3% 0.0%38 0.1% 0.0%39 0.1% 0.0%40 0.1% 0.0%Ref 703 704

County (Excluding Airport) Airport

% Merit Increases in Salaries Next Year



RETIREMENT PATTERN

Ealry Retirement

Age Not Public Safety Public Safety Not Public Safety55 25% 25% 5%56 20% 25% 6%57 20% 25% 7%58 20% 25% 8%59 30% 25% 9%60 30% 25% 10%61 40% 25% 10%62 40% 50%63 40% 27%64 50% 27%65 30% 50%66 25% 27%67 10% 27%68 15% 30%69 80% 30%70 100% 100%Rx 2661 2659 2658

anchor 55 55 55

Regular Retirement

Service Not Public Safety Public Safety30 30% 40%31 20% 30%32 15% 20%33 30% 30%34 30% 40%35 40% 50%36 30% 25%37 30% 25%38 30% 25%39 20% 25%40 100% 100%Rx 2120 2660

anchor 30 30

Regular Retirement

Rates were increased to 45% for non-public safety and 40% for public safety once a member reached the maximum benefit of 75% of FAC. For members that are at least 42 as of September 30, 2015, have at least 10 years of service as of September 30, 2015 and entered the plan before age 42, the retirement pattern is applied when the member is eligible for the frozen benefit. For all other members, the retirement pattern is applied when the member is eligible for the new, non-frozen, benefit.



RETIRED HEALTHY LIVES MORTALITY RATES

Age in Age in 2015 Male Female 2015 Male Female

50 0.4159% 0.2764% 86 9.2959% 7.4387%51 0.4501% 0.2915% 87 10.4079% 8.3567%52 0.4857% 0.3091% 88 11.6442% 9.3729%53 0.5193% 0.3296% 89 13.0132% 10.4963%54 0.5531% 0.3529% 90 14.5249% 11.7423%55 0.5881% 0.3792% 91 16.1192% 13.0891%56 0.6250% 0.4084% 92 17.7468% 14.5156%57 0.6645% 0.4410% 93 19.3782% 16.0039%58 0.7073% 0.4769% 94 21.0116% 17.5464%59 0.7539% 0.5165% 95 22.6213% 19.1424%60 0.8054% 0.5595% 96 24.4390% 20.8750%61 0.8621% 0.6074% 97 26.3016% 22.6776%62 0.9245% 0.6596% 98 28.2258% 24.5508%63 0.9935% 0.7165% 99 30.1990% 26.4883%64 1.0704% 0.7799% 100 32.2127% 28.4766%65 1.1546% 0.8497% 101 34.2471% 30.4952%66 1.2488% 0.9275% 102 36.2529% 32.5235%67 1.3530% 1.0146% 103 38.2275% 34.5468%68 1.4698% 1.1118% 104 40.1401% 36.5291%69 1.6020% 1.2206% 105 41.9879% 38.4860%70 1.7506% 1.3420% 106 43.7680% 40.3756%71 1.9169% 1.4782% 107 45.4357% 42.1823%72 2.1052% 1.6292% 108 47.0136% 43.9150%73 2.3166% 1.7981% 109 48.4979% 45.5515%74 2.5539% 1.9864% 110 49.8612% 47.0794%75 2.8208% 2.1970% 111 50.3422% 48.4934%76 3.1213% 2.4333% 112 50.2562% 49.8004%77 3.4587% 2.6993% 113 50.1756% 50.3367%78 3.8411% 3.0007% 114 50.0902% 50.1553%79 4.2699% 3.3424% 115 50.0000% 50.0000%80 4.7565% 3.7296% 116 50.0000% 50.0000%81 5.3050% 4.1732% 117 50.0000% 50.0000%82 5.9251% 4.6728% 118 50.0000% 50.0000%83 6.6240% 5.2444% 119 50.0000% 50.0000%84 7.4159% 5.8902% 120 100.0000% 100.0000%85 8.3025% 6.6199% Ref #2135sb0x1 #2136sb0x1

% Dying Next Year % Dying Next Year

Applicable to calendar year 2015. Rates in future years are determined by the above rates and the MP-2016 projection scale.



RETIRED DISABLED LIVES MORTALITY RATES


50 2.0871% 1.1891% 86 13.1949% 10.7185%51 2.1579% 1.2490% 87 14.3561% 11.5996%52 2.2299% 1.3124% 88 15.6231% 12.5268%53 2.2874% 1.3788% 89 16.9992% 13.5032%54 2.3416% 1.4472% 90 18.4897% 14.5402%55 2.3966% 1.5159% 91 19.9691% 15.6771%56 2.4548% 1.5837% 92 21.4226% 16.8990%57 2.5190% 1.6495% 93 22.8419% 18.1891%58 2.5909% 1.7126% 94 24.2374% 19.5386%59 2.6696% 1.7737% 95 25.5824% 20.9436%60 2.7574% 1.8324% 96 27.1331% 22.4889%61 2.8529% 1.8937% 97 28.6957% 24.0960%62 2.9563% 1.9579% 98 30.2854% 25.7627%63 3.0683% 2.0279% 99 31.8918% 27.4828%64 3.1906% 2.1092% 100 33.5185% 29.2473%65 3.3219% 2.2024% 101 35.1700% 31.0461%66 3.4670% 2.3107% 102 36.8366% 32.8759%67 3.6238% 2.4374% 103 38.5336% 34.7335%68 3.7984% 2.5830% 104 40.2465% 36.5948%69 3.9944% 2.7507% 105 41.9879% 38.4860%70 4.2120% 2.9413% 106 43.7680% 40.3756%71 4.4520% 3.1585% 107 45.4357% 42.1823%72 4.7213% 3.4006% 108 47.0136% 43.9150%73 5.0187% 3.6721% 109 48.4979% 45.5515%74 5.3464% 3.9737% 110 49.8612% 47.0794%75 5.7084% 4.3068% 111 50.3422% 48.4934%76 6.1075% 4.6748% 112 50.2562% 49.8004%77 6.5450% 5.0785% 113 50.1756% 50.3367%78 7.0304% 5.5224% 114 50.0902% 50.1553%79 7.5602% 6.0072% 115 50.0000% 50.0000%80 8.1486% 6.5331% 116 50.0000% 50.0000%81 8.7959% 7.1098% 117 50.0000% 50.0000%82 9.5115% 7.7264% 118 50.0000% 50.0000%83 10.3005% 8.3986% 119 50.0000% 50.0000%84 11.1775% 9.1191% 120 100.0000% 100.0000%85 12.1385% 9.8931% Ref #2137sb0x1 #2138sb0x1


Applicable to calendar year 2015. Rates in future years are determined by the above rates and the MP-2016 projection scale.



DEATH-IN-SERVICE RATES


20 0.0381% 0.0163% 56 0.3156% 0.1911%21 0.0425% 0.0166% 57 0.3495% 0.2079%22 0.0467% 0.0167% 58 0.3887% 0.2254%23 0.0492% 0.0173% 59 0.4338% 0.2439%24 0.0506% 0.0178% 60 0.4859% 0.2632%25 0.0480% 0.0181% 61 0.5454% 0.2843%26 0.0464% 0.0186% 62 0.6126% 0.3068%27 0.0456% 0.0192% 63 0.6884% 0.3317%28 0.0455% 0.0199% 64 0.7734% 0.3595%29 0.0462% 0.0208% 65 0.8678% 0.3902%30 0.0472% 0.0221% 66 0.9616% 0.4325%31 0.0488% 0.0235% 67 1.0642% 0.4798%32 0.0506% 0.0251% 68 1.1781% 0.5326%33 0.0524% 0.0269% 69 1.3050% 0.5918%34 0.0539% 0.0287% 70 1.4463% 0.6579%35 0.0553% 0.0306% 71 1.6031% 0.7324%36 0.0564% 0.0324% 72 1.7793% 0.8152%37 0.0578% 0.0347% 73 1.9757% 0.9084%38 0.0597% 0.0372% 74 2.1944% 1.0128%39 0.0621% 0.0400% 75 2.4383% 1.1299%40 0.0654% 0.0432% 76 2.7098% 1.2613%41 0.0694% 0.0467% 77 3.0105% 1.4087%42 0.0745% 0.0507% 78 3.3460% 1.5743%43 0.0812% 0.0555% 79 3.7159% 1.7600%44 0.0894% 0.0609% 80 4.1278% 1.9673%45 0.0991% 0.0671% 81 4.6726% 2.3270%46 0.1106% 0.0742% 82 5.3467% 2.8306%47 0.1237% 0.0821% 83 6.1442% 3.4775%48 0.1384% 0.0907% 84 7.0649% 4.2589%49 0.1546% 0.0999% 85 8.0958% 5.1698%50 0.1725% 0.1100% 86 9.2340% 6.2011%51 0.1921% 0.1210% 87 10.4744% 7.3457%52 0.2137% 0.1330% 88 11.8052% 8.5866%53 0.2358% 0.1460% 89 13.2156% 9.9129%54 0.2596% 0.1601% 90 14.6950% 11.3198%55 0.2860% 0.1752% Ref #2133sb0x1 #2134sb0x1


Applicable to calendar year 2015. Rates in future years are determined by the above rates and the MP-2016 projection scale. 90% of deaths are assumed to be non-duty related and the remaining 10% are assumed to be duty related.

November 22, 2016 Mr. Robert Grden Executive Director Wayne County Employees’ Retirement System 28 W. Adams, Suite 1900 Detroit, Michigan 48226 Re: 2010 – 2015 WCERS Experience Study Dear Rob: Enclosed find six copies of the 2010 – 2015 WCERS Experience Study. Sincerely,

Judith A. Kermans, EA, FCA, MAAA JAK:bd Enclosures cc: Brian B. Murphy, GRS

Documents

WAYNE COUNTY EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEMwcers.org/publications/GRS Actuarial Assumptions Study.pdf · Brian B. Murphy and Judith A. Kermans are Members of the American Academy