2014_0512_CCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Sa�mn�ary: Roseville, Minnesota; General Obligation retirement plans. The city makes its full required contribution payments defined by state statute, which were $509,000 for GERF and $600,000 for PEPFF in fiscal 2012. In addition, the ciry contributes to the Roseville Fire Department Relief Assn., a single-employer defined-benefit pension plan that provides retirement, disabiliry, and death benefits to the city's volunteer firefighters. The city funding requirements equal the minimum obligation less the Minnesota State fire aid. Roseville contributed $206,000 to this plan in 2012. Combined, pension contributions totaled 4.9% of total governmental funds expenditures in fiscal 2012. Roseville does not pay for any portion of retiree healthcare premiums but allows employees to stay in its health insurance plan upon retirement and continue to pay active premium rates. As such, a portion of the city's contributions to the healthcare plan for active employees constitutes an implicit subsidy contribution on behalf of its retirees. In 2012, this other postemployment benefit (OPEB) implicit subsidy contribution totaled $68,000. As of the Jan. 1, 2011 actuarial valuation, the city's unfunded OPEB liability was $1.71 million, which it funds on a pay-as-you-go basis. Together, the city's OPEB and pension contributions equaled 5.2% of total governmental funds expenditures. We consider the Institutional Framework score for Minnesota cities with a population above 2,500 to be strong. See "Institutional Framework Overview: Minnesota Local Governments," Sept. 12, 2013. C�i� • • _�7 The stable outlook reflects what we view as Roseville's consistent financial operations, including very strong budgetary flexibility and liquidity and strong budgetary performance, supported by very strong management conditions. We do not expect to revise the rating in the next two years, given the ciry's very strong economy, which is unlikely to change significantly, and our anticipation that Roseville will maintain balanced budgetary results. Related Cr�teria And Research Related Criteria • USPF Criteria: Local Government GO Ratings Methodology And Assumptions, Sept. 12, 2013 • Ratings Above The Sovereign: Corporate And Government Ratings—Methodology And Assumptions, Nov. 19, 2013 Related Research • S&P Public Finance Local GO Criteria: How We Adjust Data For Analytic Consistency, Sept. 12, 2013 • Institutional Framework Overview: Minnesota Local Governments, Sept. 12, 2013 Complete ratings information is available to subscribers of RatingsDirect at www.globalcreditportal.com. All ratings affected by this rating action can be found on Standard & Poor's public Web site at www.standardandpoors.com. Use the Ratings search box located in the left column. W W W. STANDARDANDPOO RS. C OM /RATINGSDIRECT FEBRUARY 3, 2014 3