Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Adoption topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Jose retirement board reviews $8.799 million administrative budget, proposes staff shifts
Summary
Board staff presented an $8.799 million administrative budget request — a 3.31% increase — highlighting a proposed Benefits Program Manager and a Deputy CIO, and discussed forecasting methods, quarterly reporting and next steps for approval with the city.
San Jose’s retirement board on April 15 heard a detailed presentation of the proposed administrative expense budget for fiscal 2026, a request of $8.799 million representing a 3.31% increase over the prior budget. Presenter staff told trustees the proposal includes a new Benefits Program Manager position and a Deputy CIO while eliminating a senior investment officer, yielding roughly no net change in head count but shifting responsibilities.
The presenter said the budget is funded primarily by investment income, participant contributions and city contributions, and that major investment manager fees are not included in the administrative budget. “These are budget numbers,” the presenter said, explaining the assumptions and a seven‑year trend slide that showed the five‑year average annual budget increase at roughly 8% and the current request at 3.31%.
Why it matters: Trustees pressed staff on forecasting methods and a sizable apparent gap between forecasted monthly run rates and the proposed budget. One trustee pressed whether the forecast was being smoothed and how lump-sum or timing effects were handled; staff explained that linear forecasting can underrepresent lump-sum expenses and offered to provide category-level analysis and more frequent reporting. Trustee S.Z. asked why a seemingly large cushion was being requested when current spending runs under budget; staff replied that the cushion reflects timing uncertainty and the need to avoid repeated budget amendments later in the city process.
The presentation flagged key drivers: personnel costs (salary and benefits), cybersecurity testing, a planned web‑search initiative, and periodic professional services such as actuarial and legal work that can be lumpy. Staff said the request assumes no new strategic initiatives beyond those already scoped and that any new initiatives would require separate budget decisions.
Trustees discussed next steps: staff suggested quarterly reporting and monthly expense attachments be included on consent agendas to give the board more timely visibility. The presenter also offered to form an ad hoc committee to perform a budget deep dive before finalizing recommendations for the city, noting actuarial deadlines could affect the timing of some decisions.
The board took no final vote adopting the administrative budget at the meeting; trustees approved several related procedural motions and directed staff to return with additional analysis and reporting if requested.
