Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee forwards KCBA rate update and GASB 75 valuation to legislative agenda
Summary
Operations committee agreed to place KCBA Architects' 2025 rate schedule and a GASB 75 actuarial valuation contract on the district's legislative agenda for approval; staff described projected cost ranges and the statutory cadence for the OPEB valuation.
Committee members agreed to move two administrative items to the legislative agenda for board approval later this month: an updated rate schedule from KCBA Architects and a biennial actuarial valuation for GASB 75 (other post‑employment benefits).
KCBA: Staff said the district approved KCBA as architect of record in February 2024 and KCBA submitted an updated 2025 rate schedule. District staff reported the proposed rate increases range from about 5.3% to 15.4%, depending on position, and that the update also includes reimbursable expense rates tied to project needs. The district will present the rate schedule for formal approval at the legislative meeting.
GASB 75 valuation: The committee was told the actuarial valuation for OPEB is required every other year to produce numbers used in the district’s entity‑wide financial statements. Staff described the historical practice of using the Pennsylvania Trust, with Conrad Siegel performing the work; similar vendors are used by many county districts. The last fee was about $5,600; staff estimated a repeat “simple valuation” might run about $6,300 for the next cycle. The valuation will be contracted and then used for the 2024–25 and 2025–26 financial statements and audit cycles.
Why it matters: The KCBA rate update affects ongoing and future capital planning and project budgets; the GASB 75 valuation determines the actuarial numbers the district must disclose for OPEB liabilities in audited financial statements.
Next steps: Both items will appear on the legislative agenda this month for the board’s formal approval. No formal votes were recorded at the committee meeting.
Ending: Committee members asked no substantive questions beyond clarifications and supported forwarding both items to the legislative agenda.
