pension & benefits committee friday 17 june …...2016/06/17 · the next meeting is on friday...

Board of Governors PENSION & BENEFITS COMMITTEE

Friday 17 June 2016 9:30 a.m. to 12:00 noon

NH 3318

OPEN SESSION ACTION

9:30 1. Approval of the 20 May 2016 Minutes* and Business Arisinga. Terms of Reference - Responsible Investment Working Group*

Approved by Board of Governors [Wilkinson]

Decision Information

2. Execution Against the Work Plan* Information

9:40

9:50

10:10

10:30

10:40

11:10

11:15

11:20

3. Update on Government Pension Plan Initiatives [Shapira] (10 min)

4. Review of Cap Protocol - Addendum to May 20, 2016 Material*[Shapira/Byron]

5. Asset Liability Studies* [Shapira/Byron]

6. Report from RPPI [Forrest, Hardy]a. Investment Recommendation from Finance & Investment

Committee*b. Follow-up re: Tracking Error in TDAM Passive Global Equity

Analysis* [Huber]

7. Benefits Utilization Report* [Hornberger]

8. Impact of Removing Maxima for Out-of-Province Retirees* [Hornberger]

9. Update re: Request for Proposals for Employee and Family AssistanceProgram* [Hornberger]

10. Update: Implementation of New Pension Administration System** [Hornberger]

Information

Discussion

Discussion

Information Decision

Information

Information

Information

Information

Information

11:30 11. Other Business

12. Proceed into Confidential Session

CONFIDENTIAL SESSION

13. Approval of the 20 May 2016 Minutes (Confidential)+ and Business Arising

14. Next Meeting: Friday 9 September 2016, 9:30 a.m. – 12:00 noon, NH 3318

Decision

*attached** to be distributed

+ distributed separately

10 June 2016 Mike Grivicic Assistant University Secretary

Please convey regrets to Terri Rau at 519-888-4567 x37549 or [email protected]

PB 17 June 2016, page 1 of 61

mailto:[email protected]

University of Waterloo Board of Governors

PENSION & BENEFITS COMMITTEE Minutes of the 20 May 2016 Meeting

Present: Monika Bothwell, Stewart Forrest, Peter Forsyth, Mary Hardy, Dennis Huber, David Kibble, Ramesh Kumar, Ian Orchard, Michael Steinmann, Marilyn Thompson, Christine Wagner, Karen Wilkinson, Marta Witer Regrets: Lori Curtis Administration: Linda Byron, Sarah Hadley (6,11), Blaine Hertzberg and Nic Yungblut of Ernst & Young (6), Lee Hornberger, Allan Shapira Secretariat: Alice Raynard Organization of Meeting: Karen Wilkinson took the chair and Alice Raynard acted as secretary, in absence of Sian Williams. The secretary advised that a quorum was present. The agenda was approved without formal motion. 1. MINUTES OF THE 11 MARCH 2016 MEETING AND BUSINESS ARISING A motion was heard to approve the minutes as distributed. Witer and Wagner. Carried. There was no business arising from the minutes. 2. EXECUTION AGAINST THE WORK PLAN Raynard advised that the committee was on schedule. 3. UPDATE ON GOVERNMENT PENSION PLAN INITIATIVES Shapira informed members of the work of the provincial task force where overall the process to date has been excellent but difficulties persist re: fostering change of the solvency regime and enabling implementation, as rules will be the same across all sectors in Ontario. It is expected that the government will release a position paper shortly and ask for feedback about some options; this may bring about potentially-significant changes (including to solvency relief) to the rules and may slow implementation. 4. Q1 DASHBOARD SUMMARY Byron spoke to the document and observed: increase to the going concern deficit; investment risk within the pension fund; a risk-free benchmark discount rate below 1% has been used; the asset duration assumes an equity weighting of zero; potential for large increase in university contributions starting in 2017; interest rates are persistent low and this poses challenges; the science of liability-driven investment strategies is improving and background material will be provided; an asset liability study could be done since one has not been done in a long time. This item will be brought forward to a future meeting to review the inputs/outputs. 5. ANALYSIS OF THE CAPS ON THE RPP AND PPP Byron presented the material and indicated: the document contains a summary of the protocol, adopted in 2008; this protocol and the indexation protocol should be compared to see if there is a conflict between them; there is still room to increase the current RPP limit to the maximum cap until 2020; the current cap for the PPP is $3,400, which will be reached in 2017; analysis contemplates increase in payroll plan cap and what the cost would be; as the Caps increase, liabilities move from the PPP to the RPP; liabilities must continue to be highlighted so that members are aware of accrued liabilities; some other university plans have supplementary defined contribution plans; benefits of maintaining the caps should be investigated, so that the range of options can be assessed. It was noted that a decision to move one cap versus both caps should be scrutinized, such that both are moved in an equitable way and to avoid unintended consequences problems; this point will be discussed at the next meeting. 6. ANNUAL AUDIT OF THE PENSION PLAN FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Hadley presented the financial statement and observed: statement of changes is included; financial statements show the changes in the year and the assets at the end of the year; over $1 billion in assets were invested last year; notes to the financial statements contain content that foster compliance with reporting requirements and to explain risks


Pension & Benefits Committee 20 May 2016 page 2 of 4 and mitigations. Ernst & Young reports that no adjustments are required and that no issues were identified in this audit. A motion was made to approve the financial statements as presented. Forrest and Bothwell. Carried. 7. UTILIZATION OF DEPOSIT FUNDS Speaking to the document, Hornberger summarized the balance of the four deposit accounts held by Sun Life Financial and Great-West Life including how they had been generated over the years. She then recapped the decisions made at the 11 March 11 2016 meeting, namely that the largest deposit account (est. $677,440) will be used to subsidize life insurance premium payments and that options for using the remaining three (est. $111,153) need to be considered by the Committee. Although not included as one of the options outlined in the exhibit, Hornberger suggested that these three funds could be transferred into the largest deposit account to increase the funds available for the subsidization of life insurance premium rates. A brief discussion occurred surrounding the other options outlined in the exhibit. Members then heard a motion to consolidate all four deposit funds (est. $788,593) under the Unrestricted Deposit Account with Sun Life Financial. Bothwell and Witer. Carried, with one abstention (Kumar). 8. DRAFT TERMS OF REFERENCE - RESPONSIBLE INVESTMENT WORKING GROUP The Committee heard representations from the President of the FAUW, Sally Gunz, about the proposed composition of the Responsible Investment Working Group (RIWG), as it focuses on titles rather than on competencies (questioning representation from students and the VP Advancement), appearing too constraining because of the phrase “financially literate and have knowledge of investments generally”, may misguide the RIWG in thinking that pension plans are university investments, instead of belonging to the employees, and prevent thoughtful discussions from happening. It was clarified that the RIWG has been under discussion for over a year, and was not being created because of letters from students and faculty regarding fossil fuel divestment, but that it was broader, including environmental, social and governance factors ; There was also commentary regarding setting up 2 committees – one for pension and one for endowment; whether there should be an expert panel of faculty, staff, students and alumni appointed by the President, as at University of Toronto; and clarification that the group would consult broadly. Ultimately, matters submitted by the RIWG would have to pass though the various committees of the BOG and the Board itself.

9. UPDATE TO TDAM PASSIVE GLOBAL EQUITY ANALYSIS Huber observed that the reciprocal tax treaty with the US yields savings, and ten year performance is better with the blended funds. This item will be forwarded to the next Registered Pension Plan Investments Subcommittee meeting on 9 June 2016 for discussion. Huber will follow up on the apparent tracking error in the document. 10. OVERVIEW OF 2016-17 OPERATING BUDGET Orchard spoke to the budget: approved by Senate at its last meeting; government grants are frozen and that increases in revenue are largely driven by increases in tuition; the 2016-17 estimated budget predicts a tolerable deficit of$2,14M, depending on the final count of student enrolments; increases in costs are largely driven by increases in salary, wages and benefits brought about by hiring additional faculty and staff, and by employee group settlements. Members discussed international tuition fees, interest from trusts; it was pointed out that endowment is not considered in the operating budget statements. 11. PREVIOUS YEARS’ FEES AND EXPENSES Hadley provided an overview of the five year report. It was noted that fees are on percentage of asset value. 12. OTHER BUSINESS Hornberger reminded members that the implementation of a pension administration system (Ariel, provided by Morneau Shepell) was approved by the Committee approximately one year ago and that the current administration system will not be available after December 2016. A project plan with a target date of September 2016 was developed by Morneau Shepell and resources from IST and HR were assigned to support the project; however, an internal project manager and additional subject matter experts were not assigned. As a result, the pension services team has been challenged to meet implementation milestones while keeping up with regular workload activities. An update will be given at the next meeting, along with a request for the Committee’s consideration for a delayed systems launch and potentially additional resources.


Pension & Benefits Committee 20 May 2016 page 3 of 4 13. NEXT MEETING The next meeting is on Friday 17 June 2016 from 9:30 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. in Needles Hall Room 3318.

With no additional business in open session, the Committee proceeded into confidential session.

1 June 2016 Alice Raynard /mg Associate University Secretary


Board of Governors Responsible Investment Working Group

Approved Terms of Reference Membership 10 of 12 members will be financially literate and have knowledge of investments generally. A majority of members will have knowledge of the University’s investment funds.

• Three members of the Board of Governors or its finance and/or pension committees, other than University employee or student members

• Six members of either the Board of Governors or its pension committee, as follows: o One faculty member to be nominated be the FAUW executive; o One staff member to be nominated by the UWSA executive; o One CUPE member to be nominated by the executive of CUPE Local 793 (The member of

the Pension and Benefits Committee who is a representative of CUPE Local 793); o One undergraduate student to be nominated by the FEDS executive; o One graduate student to be nominated by the GSA executive; and o One retiree to be nominated by the executive of the Retirees' Association (the member of

the Pension and Benefits Committee who is a representative of retirees). • Vice-president, administration & finance • Vice-president, advancement • Vice-president, academic & provost, or delegate

Chair The vice-president, academic & provost or delegate will serve as chair. The chair may vote, if necessary, in order to break a tie. Terms of Reference The mandate of this working group is to make recommendations to the Board of Governors through the appropriate committees and subcommittees (outlined below) as to whether and how to incorporate environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors into decision making re: the investment of the endowment and pension funds, taking into consideration:

• The legal and regulatory requirements including, among other things, fiduciary responsibilities, investing and investments, ESG reporting and contractual commitments;

• The goals and purposes of the University pension and endowment funds; • Existing University investments, policy and governance frameworks; • The financial context of the University; • Research into options for incorporating ESG factors into investment decisions; • Review of approaches taken at peer institutions; • Consultation with University stakeholders e.g. retirees, alumni, donors; and • Advice provided by University investment advisors.

The working group shall report to the Board of Governors from time to time to provide status reports on its progress in meeting its mandate. Reporting & Approval Subject to review and approval by the Board of Governors Registered Pension Plan Investments Subcommittee, Finance & Investment Committee and Pension & Benefits Committee, in accordance with their mandates, the recommendations of the working group will be reflected in the statements of investment policies and procedures for the endowment and pension funds and submitted to the Board for final approval. Term This working group will serve until the earlier of the date on which it has fulfilled its mandate and the date on which the Board of Governors dissolves the working group. Approved by the Board of Governors on 7 June 2016


Pension & Benefits Committee, Board of Governors, University of Waterloo Execution against Work Plan

The below represents the annual responsibilities of the P&B Committee and has been prepared as an aid to planning only. The committee’s activities are much broader, however, and include: legislative changes, plan changes and improvements; selection of managers and service providers; and requests from the UW community regarding pension and benefits plans.

1 The 2015 version of the SIPP was approved by the Board of Governors at its 27 October 2015 meeting. There is also a need to consult with the community on the incorporation of environmental, social and governance factors into investment decision-making. So the annual review of the SIPP will be deferred until after consultation takes place. 2 1 January 2014 Actuarial Valuation Report was filed in July 2014.

Task Frequency 19 Jun 2015

11 Sept 2015

09 Oct 2015

13 Nov 2015

11 Dec 2015

15 Jan 2016

26 Feb 2016

11 Mar 2016

20 May 2016

17 Jun 2016

Approval of Actuarial Valuation Assumptions Annual

Approval of the Statement of Investment Policies and Procedures (SIPP)

Annual 1

Preliminary Valuation Results (RPP and PPP) Annual

Actuarial Valuations (RPP and PPP) Annual

Actuarial Filing2 Minimum every three years

Cost-of-living adjustment to payroll pension plan limit

Annual

Cost-of-living Increase for Pensioners Annual

Pensions for Deferred Members Annual

Salaries for Pension Purposes for Individuals on Long-term Disability

Annual

Benefits Plan Premium Renewals Annual

Indexing of Long-term Disability Plan Benefits and Maxima

Annual


3 Conducted online in May 2015

Task Frequency 19 Jun 2015

11 Sept 2015

09 Oct 2015

13 Nov 2015

11 Dec 2015

15 Jan 2016

26 Feb 2016

11 Mar 2016

20 May 2016

17 Jun 2016

Investment Status of PPP Annual

Review of Contribution and Protocol Caps (RPP and PPP)

Annual

Budget Overview Annual

Benefits/Financial Analysis Report Annual

Cost of Removing Life-time Maximum on Out-Of-Province Health Care Coverage for Retirees

Annual

Investment Manager Review (provided under reports from RPPI)

Twice

Total Fund Overview (provided under reports from RPPI)

Quarterly

Flexible Pension Plan Annual

Previous Years’ Fees and Expenses Annual

Annual Audit of the Pension Plan Fund Financial Statements

Annual

Annual Report to the Community Annual

Indexing of Health and Dental Plan Maxima Annual

Committee Evaluation3 Annual


Presentation to

Prepared by Aon Hewitt

University of Waterloo

Review of Cap Protocol-Addendum to May 20, 2016 Material University of Waterloo Pension and Benefits Committee Meeting

June 17, 2016


Proprietary & Confidential | 2Aon Hewitt

June 17, 2016

About this Material

This material is in follow-up to the discussion at the May 20, 2016 Pension and Benefits Committee

In particular, the committee requested cost information for a fixed increase in both the hard-dollar RPP and the PPP caps



June 17, 2016

Impact of Increase in RPP/PPP Caps

The chart below shows the increase in Accrued Liability and Current Service Cost for active, disabled and suspended members at January 1, 2016 if the current RPP cap is indexed in the future to a maximum cap of $ 3,400.00, and the PPP cap is indexed to a maximum cap of $3,600.00. The calculations from the May 20 meeting material are shown for comparison.

These caps are projected to be sufficient to 2020 for the PPP and 2022 for the RPP

1 Current $2,890.00 RPP cap indexed annually subject to $3,200.00 maximum cap; current $3,309.00 PPP cap indexed annually, subject to $3,400.00 maximum cap2 Current $2,890.00 RPP cap indexed annually, no maximum cap; current $3,309.00 PPP cap indexed annually, no maximum cap3 Current $2,890.00 RPP cap indexed annually, no maximum cap; current $3,309.00 PPP cap indexed annually; subject to $3,400.00 maximum cap

Current provision1

Projected Caps2 (Protocol

Calculations)

Projected RPP Cap;

Frozen PPP Cap3

$ 3,400 RPP Cap $ 3,600 PPP Cap

Accured Liability RPP $ 803,038,730 $ 854,147,904 $ 854,147,904 $ 816,506,678 PPP $ 21,380,969 $ 27,966,632 $ 9,652,355 $ 21,358,596 Total $ 824,419,699 $ 882,114,536 $ 863,800,259 $ 837,865,274 Current Service Cost RPP and PPP $ 33,409,590 $ 39,458,959 $ 38,037,572 $ 34,640,320



June 17, 2016

Legal Disclaimer

© 2016 Aon Hewitt Inc. All Rights Reserved.

This document contains confidential information and trade secrets protected by copyrights owned by Aon Hewitt. The document is intended to remain strictly confidential and to be used only for your internal needs and only for the purpose for which it was initially created by Aon Hewitt. No part of this document may be disclosed to any third party or reproduced by any means without the prior written consent of Aon Hewitt.


Presentation to the University of Waterloo Pension and Benefits Committee

Prepared by Aon Hewitt

Asset Liability StudiesJune 17, 2016


Proprietary & Confidential | June 17, 2016 2Aon Hewitt

What is an Asset Liability Study?

An Asset Liability study is designed to help a plan sponsor set the strategic asset mix for the pension plan

An Asset Liability study involves the projection of a pension plan’s assets and liabilities using numerous economic and capital market environment scenarios

Under the Asset Liability study framework, we quantify the possible distribution of uncertain outcomes of key variables relevant to stakeholders:

The ultimate goal of the Asset Liability study is to define an effective investment strategy– Process designed so that the plan sponsor has a full understanding of the investment strategies

available and their inherent benefits and risks

INPUTS

Plan Valuation

Demographic Projection

Market Conditions

Return Expectations Asset Liability Modelling

Future Contribution Rates

Future Surplus / Deficit

Future Cash Flows

Future Solvency RatioInterest and Inflation Rates

Market Volatility

Plan Funding Strategy

OUTPUTS



How is an Asset Liability Study Conducted?

INPUTS

Plan Valuation

Demographic Projection

Plan Funding Policy

Current Market ConditionsAsset Liability

Modelling

Future Contribution Rates

Future Surplus / Deficit

Future Cash Flows

Future Solvency RatioReturn Expectations

Interest and Inflation Rates

Market Volatility

Projection Module and Economic Scenario Generator

The Asset Liability study is conducted using Aon Hewitt’s proprietary Projection Module and Economic Scenario Generator (ESG)

The ESG is used to generate distributions of asset class returns, interest and inflation rates according to assumptions specified at the beginning of the study

The Projection Module uses the plan’s valuation coded on ProVal, demographic projections and projections of liabilities, along with the asset class returns, interest and inflation rates from the ESG to produce projections and distributions of plan liabilities and asset values

– The projected assets and liabilities are then used by the Projection Module to calculate funded ratios and contribution rates, among other variables

Projection Module

Economic Scenario

Generator (ESG)

OUTPUTS



How is an Asset Liability Study Conducted?

Meeting Preparatory Activities Meeting Outcomes Timeline

Planning Meeting / Objective Setting

• Prepare discussion document for Planning Meeting

• Discuss Asset-Liability methodology• Review current status of pension plans• Define risk-tolerance, risk-preference and

pension related objectives• Identify asset classes to include in analysis• Confirm asset and liability assumptions• Outcome: Assumptions set and objectives

understood and agreed upon

Week 1

Risk Diagnosis • Run projection of plan demographics and stochastic projection of assets and liabilities

• Prepare discussion document for Risk Diagnosis meeting

• Review projected evolution of the plan’s demographics

• Review the projection of plan liabilities• Review the projection of the plan’s funded

status and contributions under the current asset mix policy

• Outcome: Determine the appropriate reward and risk measures for optimization

Week 5

Optimization • Run stochastic projections for a large number of portfolios

• Rank portfolios according to the reward and risk variables and draw an efficient frontier line

• Determine the optimal asset allocation while taking into account the plan’s commitments and risk tolerance

• Optimization of the portfolio• Outcome: Asset Mix strategy

Week 10

Project Plan



How is an Asset Liability Study Conducted?Sample Outcome – Risk Diagnosis

The chart above is an example of the output from the Risk Diagnosis where we’re showing a projection of employer contributions for ten years under the current asset mix

This chart is produced by projecting plan demographics, liabilities and assets over a ten year period under a multitude of different interest rate, inflation and asset return scenarios

Similar chats are prepared for funded ratios

Projection of Employer Contributions



How is an Asset Liability Study Conducted?Sample Outcome - Optimization

An outcome of the Risk Diagnosis is to define the measure of risk and reward– For example, we could use total contributions over the projection period as risk and reward

• Optimal portfolios then have the lowest average contributions for a given level of worst-case contributions

We then repeat the calculations used in the Risk Diagnosis for thousands of asset mixes and asset mix strategies

The thousands of portfolios are then ranked according to the measure that is optimized to plot the most efficient asset mix strategies on a risk and reward basis

Ultimately we recommend a final asset mix strategy factoring in the plan sponsor’s objectives

Current

60% Fixed Income (FI)

65% FI

70% FI

75% FI

Glide Path to 70% FI

$92.0

$93.0

$94.0

$95.0

$96.0

$97.0

$98.0

$99.0

$100.0

$185.0 $190.0 $195.0 $200.0

Ave

rage

Tota

l Con

tribu

tions

Worst Case Total Contributions



Standard Asset Classes Modelled

Inflation Private Equity

FTSE TMX Canada Universe Bond Index, and all subcategories Farmland

FTSE TMX Real Return Bond Index Timberland

FTSE TMX 20+ STIP Bond Index Hedge Funds – Global Macro

Banker’s Acceptance Hedge Funds – Market Neutral

Global Bonds Hedge Funds – Equity Long Short

High Yield Bonds Hedge Funds – Convertible Arbitrage

Bank Loans Hedge Funds – Distressed Debt

Emerging Market Debt Hedge Funds – Event Driven

Canadian Equities (Large cap, small cap, low volatility) Multi-Strategy Hedge Funds

US Equities (Large cap, small/mid cap, small cap, low volatility) Diversified Growth Funds

International Equities (Large cap, small cap, low volatility)

Global Equities (MSCI World or ACWI) (Large cap, small cap, low volatility)

Emerging Markets (including low volatility)

Commodities

Canadian Real Estate (Direct)

US Real Estate (Direct)

Global REITS

Infrastructure (Direct)


Investment Recommendation

At its meeting of 19 May 2016, the Finance & Investment Committee recommended that the Registered Pension Plan fund sell 50% (~$60 million) of the US treasuries currently held and to allocate the proceeds of the sale in equal parts to the TD Emerald Canadian Bond Index Fund and TD Active Short Term Corporate Fixed Income Fund.

The Registered Pension Plan Investment Subcommittee considered this at its meeting on 9 June 2016 and agrees with this recommendation, which is forwarded to the Pension & Benefits Committee meeting of 17 June 2016.


TDAM Passive Global Equity Analysis – April 2016 Prepared for the University of Waterloo Registered Pension Plan Committee

Page 1PB 17 June 2016, page 20 of 61

1 Executive Summary Page 22 Background Information and Fund Summary Page 43 Performance Analytics Page 74 Appendix A - Aon Hewitt InTotals Page 105 Appendix B - Disclosures Page 16

Table Of Contents


Executive Summary


Executive Summary

The University of Waterloo Registered Pension Plan Investment (“RPPI”) Committee had engaged Aon Hewitt to search for a suitable passive global equity strategy in which to invest in December 2015.

After presenting the report to the University of Waterloo RPPI Committee, it was decided that Aon Hewitt would conduct further analysis on TD Asset Management (“TDAM”), specifically examining how best to achieve global equity exposure through the following options:

Product Type Product Name Manager

Canadian Institutional Pooled Fund TD Emerald Global Equity Index TD Asset Management

Canadian Institutional Pooled Fund

TD Emerald International Equity Index TD Emerald U.S. Equity Index

TD Asset Management

Recommendation

We recommend that that the University of Waterloo RPPI Committee approve a ‘synthetic’ global equity allocation by investing 60% in the TD Emerald U.S. Equity Index fund and 40% in the TD Emerald International Equity Index fund. This synthetic exposure will allow the Plan to reduce the effect of withholding taxes versus an investment in the TD Emerald Global Equity Index fund. The reduction in withholding taxes can be explained by the registered nature of the TD Emerald U.S. Equity Index fund (which is not subject to withholding taxes due to the tax treaty between the U.S. and Canada for registered pension plans).


Fund Summary and Analysis


Fund Summary

The following is a summary of the characteristics of each of the index pooled funds reviewed in this report. Unless otherwise indicated, all data is as at 31 December 2015.

Fund Name Aon Hewitt Rating Country of Listing Benchmark Fee (Basis Points)1 Fee (Dollars)

TD Emerald Global Equity Index Buy Canada MSCI World ex

Canada Index (CAD) (Net)

2 $2,4002

TD Emerald International Equity Index Buy Canada MSCI EAFE Index

(CAD) (Net) 2 $8403

TD Emerald U.S. Equity Index Buy Canada S&P 500 Index (CAD) 2 $1,5604

1Sliding scale: 23bps on first $5 million, 14bps on next $5 million, 11bps on next $10 million, 5 bps on next $80 million, 2bps on the balance. Given the size of the

University of Waterloo Pension Plan mandate with TDAM (>$600 million), the $12 million mandate would fall into the 2bp fee range

2Based on a mandate size of $12 million

3Based on a mandate size of $4.8 million (40% of $12 million)

4Based on a mandate size of $7.2 million (60% of $12 million)


Fund Summary

The University of Waterloo RPPI Committee prefers an index investment that results in the lowest fund friction due to dividend withholding taxes. Two options are presented below:

A. TD Emerald Global Equity Index: provides direct exposure to global equities by replicating the MSCI World ex Canada Index.

B. TD ‘synthetic’ global equity exposure: provides exposure to global equities by investing 60% in the TD Emerald U.S. Equity Index (which replicates the S&P 500 Index (CAD)) and 40% in the TD Emerald International Equity Index (which replicates the MSCI EAFE Index (CAD) (Net)). These weights were derived by approximating the regional allocations of the MSCI World ex Canada Index.

After confirming the approximate annual dividend and dividend withholding tax for each fund with TDAM, an analysis of the estimated fund friction due to dividend withholding taxes was completed for each portfolio. The results are presented below:

Fund Approximate Annual

Dividend (%) Dividend Withholding

Tax (%) Estimated Fund Friction

A. TD Emerald Global Equity Index 2.00% 13.50% 0.27%

B. TD Emerald ‘synthetic’ global equity exposure (40% C + 60% D)

2.00% 5.50% 0.11%

C. TD Emerald International Equity Index

2.00% 13.70% 0.27%

D. TD Emerald U.S. Equity Index 2.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Due to the tax treaty between the Canada and U.S. that exempts registered Canadian pension plans from paying taxes on U.S. equity dividends, the estimated fund friction for the TD Emerald U.S. Equity Index fund is 0.0%. Given that this fund would account for 60% of the synthetic global equity exposure, the withholding tax of the synthetic portfolio is significantly lower than the TD Emerald Global Equity Index, leading to an estimated fund friction of 11 basis points versus the TD Emerald Global Equity Index fund of 27 basis points.


Performance Analytics


Performance (%)1

Year2

Years3

Years4

Years5

Years10

YearsTD Emerald Global Equity Index -0.95 10.16 16.49 15.97 13.56 5.63MSCI World ex Canada (Net) (CAD) -1.14 9.94 16.26 15.73 13.33 5.48Tracking Error 0.19 0.22 0.23 0.24 0.23 0.15

TD Emerald International Equity Index -6.28 3.30 10.91 11.52 8.43 2.96MSCI EAFE (Net) (CAD) -6.32 3.20 10.80 11.37 8.29 2.85Tracking Error 0.04 0.10 0.11 0.15 0.14 0.11

TD Emerald U.S. Equity Index 3.93 15.93 21.15 19.80 18.09 8.12S&P 500 (CAD) 3.95 15.96 21.19 19.83 18.12 8.12Tracking Error -0.02 -0.03 -0.04 -0.03 -0.03 0.00

Trailing Period PerformanceAs of 31 March 2016


Performance (%)2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007

TD Emerald Global Equity Index 20.27 14.78 36.54 13.86 -2.54 5.56 9.74 -25.43 -8.11MSCI World ex Canada (Net) (CAD) 20.04 14.56 36.33 13.62 -2.77 5.51 9.48 -25.55 -8.08Tracking Error 0.23 0.22 0.21 0.24 0.23 0.05 0.26 0.12 -0.03

TD Emerald International Equity Index 19.06 3.83 31.12 14.90 -9.82 2.22 12.00 -28.95 -5.86MSCI EAFE (Net) (CAD) 18.95 3.67 31.02 14.72 -9.97 2.13 11.91 -29.18 -5.72Tracking Error 0.11 0.16 0.10 0.18 0.15 0.09 0.09 0.23 -0.14

TD Emerald U.S. Equity Index 21.55 23.89 41.18 13.41 4.64 9.03 7.52 -21.13 -10.52S&P 500 (CAD) 21.59 23.93 41.27 13.43 4.64 9.06 7.39 -21.20 -10.53Tracking Error -0.04 -0.04 -0.09 -0.02 0.00 -0.03 0.13 0.07 0.01

Calendar Year PerformanceAs of December 31

* Listed on a U.S. Exchange


Appendix A - Aon Hewitt InTotals


InBrief: TD Asset Management Inc. Passive Equity Strategies

Review Date Overall Rating Previous Overall Rating November 2015 Buy New Rating

Overall Rating TD Asset Management Inc. (“TDAM”) has demonstrated an ability to provide a broad platform of passive equity products which closely track their respective indexes. The size and capabilities of TDAM allows it to minimize costs and offer its index funds at reasonable expense ratios. It has a strong and systematic process to replicate the benchmark and historical tracking error has been very low. We believe TDAM offers competitive passive equity solutions for our clients.

Firm Summary Head Office Location Toronto, Ontario Parent Name TD Bank Firm AUM $291.7 billion Investment Staff 104 Equity AUM $121.8 billion Equity Staff 48

Note: AUM data as of September 30, 2015.

Investment Manager Evaluation Rating Sheet

Factor Rating Previous Rating Comments

Business 3 New Rating

With a wide range of funds and significant assets in passive equities, TDAM has demonstrated a long-term commitment to the passive equity business. TDAM is a wholly-owned subsidiary of TD Bank (“TD”), one of the largest financial institutions in Canada. The support from TD and its size gives it a significant advantage in resources and access compared to its competitors.

Dino Bourdos, Managing Director and was head of the Derivatives, Structured & Passive Equity team left the firm in August of this year. As a result, TDAM implemented a new organization structure which we believe is more in-line with industry norm, and will yield some efficiencies.

Investment Staff 3 New Rating

TDAM has a stable and deep investment staff, comprised of equity index portfolio managers, dedicated traders, and dedicated risk management professionals, all of whom oversee the firm’s equity index portfolios. TDAM’s equity indexing team is led by Vishal Bhatia, and Dino Vevaina. Both are capable and experienced investors. While Mr. Bourdos was head of the team, he did not have portfolio management responsibilities for the passive strategies. The team has experienced minimal turnover.


Rating Sheet

Factor Rating Previous Rating Comments

Investment Process 3 New Rating

The manager has a pragmatic approach to indexing using a mixture of full replication and stratified sampling techniques, depending on the underlying index, to find the right balance between limiting trading costs and minimizing tracking error. In practice the largest and longer standing passive funds own most of the benchmark. The construction process is relatively manual but this is a conscious decision as more sophisticated optimizers have yielded mixed results. Overall the investment process is systematic and well suited to passive management.

Risk Management 3 New Rating

TDAM measures risk for its equity index funds primarily in terms of tracking error. Deviations from the index are monitored very closely by the portfolio management team. In addition, a separate risk management group carries out additional oversight. TDAM also employs a conservative securities lending program where the majority of revenue is used to offset some of the costs of the funds.

Operational Due Diligence Pass New Rating

There is a dedicated and separate risk management team at TDAM that reports directly to the CEO. There are clear roles and separation of duties which helps minimize operational errors. The firm operates a third party order management system, Latent Zero, with supports straight-through processes. TDAM produces a Report on the Controls Placed in Operation and Tests of Operating Effectiveness prepared in accordance with Section 5970 of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants.

Performance Analysis 3 New Rating

TDAM has closely tracked the benchmarks of its various passive equity products over historical time periods. We expect similar results going forward.

Terms & Conditions 3 New Rating

Client and consultant relations experience has been positive overall. Fees can be less competitive for smaller mandates because of a minimum fee. They are in line with the peer group for medium and large size mandates.

Overall Rating Buy New Rating

TD Asset Management Inc. (“TDAM”) has demonstrated an ability to provide a broad platform of passive equity products which closely track their respective indexes. The size and capabilities of TDAM allows it to minimize costs and offer its index funds at reasonable expense ratios. It has a strong and systematic process to replicate the benchmark and historical tracking error has been very low. We believe TDAM offers competitive passive equity solutions for our clients.


Manager Updates and Monitoring

Major Developments

There are no major developments to report at this time.

Key Monitoring Points There are no key monitoring items to report at this time.


Ratings Explanation Below we describe the criteria which we use to rate fund management organizations and their specific investment products. With the exception of Operational Due Diligence ("ODD"), each component is assessed as follows:

Qualitative Outcome

1 = Weak

2 = Average

3 = Above Average

4 = Strong The ODD factor can be assigned a Pass, Conditional Pass, or Fail rating and can be interpreted as follows:

Pass – Our research indicates that the manager has acceptable operational controls and procedures in place.

Conditional Pass – We have specific concerns that the manager needs to address within a reasonable established timeframe.

Fail – Our research indicates that the manager has critical operational weaknesses and we recommend that clients formally review the appointment.

An overall rating is then derived and can be interpreted as follows:

Overall Rating What does this mean?

Buy We recommend clients invest with or maintain their existing allocation to our Buy rated high conviction products

Buy (Closed) We recommend clients invest with or maintain their existing allocation to our Buy rated high conviction products, however it is closed to new investors

Qualified A number of criteria have been met and we consider the investment manager to be qualified to manage client assets

Sell We recommend termination of client investments in this product

In Review The rating is under review as we evaluate factors that may cause us to change the current rating

The comments and assertions reflect our views of the specific investment product and our opinion of its quality.


Disclaimer

This document has been produced by the Global Investment Management Team of Aon plc. Nothing in this document should be treated as an authoritative statement of the law on any particular aspect or in any specific case. It should not be taken as financial advice and action should not be taken as a result of this document alone. Consultants will be pleased to answer questions on its contents but cannot give individual financial advice. Individuals are recommended to seek independent financial advice in respect of their own personal circumstances.

The Aon Centre The Leadenhall Building 122 Leadenhall Street London EC3V 4AN

Copyright © 2015 Aon plc


Appendix B - Disclosures



Appendix B – Disclosures

Manager Search Process Each manager search is conducted using general criteria as set out below that seeks to ensure identification of above average managers for any chosen mandate. In addition to general manager selection criteria, mandate specific criteria may be appropriate and applied based on the unique nature of each search.

General Manager Selection Criteria Business

– Firms should have a significant book of business with institutional clients

– Firms should have a significant base of assets under management as it is preferable that the University of Waterloo would not represent a significant percentage of the firm’s assets under management

– Firms should show relatively low levels of client turnover, and plans for controlled growth

– Stable ownership is preferred

– Ownership or compensation arrangements akin to ownership for key investment professionals is preferred, as are incentive plans that are linked to client performance

Investment Staff

– Qualified and experienced investment staff are in place

– Team shows sufficient depth to provide for appropriate succession planning and to mitigate against key person risk

– Low turnover is desirable as an indication that the track record belongs to the current team and that the team is stable

Investment Process

– A transparent, well defined and repeatable investment process that has a track record of success

– A clearly stated and consistently applied investment philosophy and research process




Investment Risk

– A quality system or process is in place for analysing, assessing and managing risk of the overall portfolio and of individual or groupings of investment positions taken

– Responsibilities for risk monitoring and management are well defined and clearly assigned to investment professionals, with a preference for dedicated risk management professionals and teams

– Systems integration within the trading, compliance and risk monitoring platforms

Performance Analysis

– Verifiable track record that is consistent with the stated investment philosophy and process

– Competitive long term returns and risk-adjusted returns relative to peers

– Volatility of returns and value added is consistent with the managers’ style

– Performance is viewed over the longer term and recent underperformance is acceptable, if long term performance history is competitive and the investment process remains unchanged

Terms and Conditions

– Asset minimums and fees that are acceptable




Ratings Explanation Below we describe the criteria which we use to rate fund management organizations and their specific investment products. With the exception of Operational Due Diligence ("ODD"), each component is assessed as follows:

Qualitative Outcome

1 = Weak

2 = Average

3 = Above Average

4 = Strong

The ODD factor can be assigned a Pass, Conditional Pass, or Fail rating and can be interpreted as follows:

Pass – Our research indicates that the manager has acceptable operational controls and procedures in place.

Conditional Pass – We have specific concerns that the manager needs to address within a reasonable established timeframe.

Fail – Our research indicates that the manager has critical operational weaknesses and we recommend that clients formally review the appointment.

The overall rating can be interpreted as follows:

Overall Rating What does this mean?

Buy We recommend clients invest with or maintain their existing allocation to our Buy rated high conviction products

Buy (Closed) We recommend clients invest with or maintain their existing allocation to our Buy rated high conviction products, however it is closed to new investors

Qualified A number of criteria have been met and we consider the investment manager to be qualified to manage client assets Sell We recommend termination of client investments in this product In Review The rating is under review as we evaluate factors that may cause us to change the current rating The comments and assertions reflect our views of the specific investment product and our opinion of its quality.




Disclaimer

This document has been produced by the Global Investment Management Team of Aon plc. Nothing in this document should be treated as an authoritative statement of the law on any particular aspect or in any specific case. It should not be taken as financial advice and action should not be taken as a result of this document alone. Consultants will be pleased to answer questions on its contents but cannot give individual financial advice. Individuals are recommended to seek independent financial advice in respect of their own personal circumstances.

Aon plc 8 Devonshire Square London EC2M 4PL

Copyright © 2015 Aon plc


Benef i ts Ut i l i za t ion Repor t

Pension & Benefits Committee

June 17, 2016


Content

• Overview• External Arrangements

• Cost Summary

• Participation

• Life Insurance

• Long Term Disability

• Healthcare Benefits


External Arrangements

Benefit Vendor Underwriting

Arrangement

Life Insurance Sun Life Financial Experience-rated,

Retention

Long Term Disability Great-West Life Experience-rated, Non-

refund

Healthcare Benefits Great-West Life Administrative Services

Only (ASO) with large

claims pooling ($50,000

per individual per year)


Cost Summary

Benefit 2014 2015 Change

Life Insurance $1,862,303 $1,580,951 -15%

Long Term Disability $3,350,122 $3,686,193 10%

Healthcare Benefits $14,164,987 $15,358,838 8%

Combined $19,377,412 $20,625,982 6%

Notes:

• 2014 data is based on May 2013 to April 2014 Life premium payments, May 2014 to April 2015 LTD premium payments, and 2014 calendar year ASO bills for healthcare benefits

• 2015 data is based on May 2014 to April 2015 Life premium payments, May 2015 to April 2016 LTD premium payments, and 2015 calendar year ASO bills for healthcare benefits


Part icipation

1406

2311

435227

12187 281

3 17 0

Faculty Staff CUPE University Colleges Affiliates

Active EmployeesParticipation in Benefits (LTD, Medical, Dental) with Great-West Life

Full Benefits Extended Health Only

981

376 240

20 23 7

Current Plan Pre June 6, 2000 & Post 1995 Pre January 1, 1996

Retired EmployeesParticipation in Medical Benefit with Great-West Life

Inside Ontario Outside Ontario

Source: Great-West Life, May 26, 2016


Life Insurance

Note: University Colleges and Affiliates included in above data

Source: Mercer Annual ULIP Renewal Reports

$1,615,300

$1,339,000

$423,044

May 2012 to April 2013 May 2013 to April 2014 May 2014 to April 2015

Paid Life Claims


Long Term Disabi l i ty

Source: Great-West Life, June 8, 2016

$1,467,293

$1,160,500

$1,520,737

May 2013 to April 2014 May 2014 to April 2015 May 2015 to April 2016

Note: University Colleges and Affiliates included in above data

Paid LTD Claims


Long Term Disabi l i ty (cont.)

Note: There are 33 open claims with the pre 2008 insurer (Manulife Financial) and their paid claims figures are not reflected in the above exhibit.


$149,140

$793,830

$305,088

$122,177 $134,755

$716,284

$396,454

$46,583

$201,451

$607,521

$408,263

$121,541

Faculty Staff CUPE University Colleges and Affiliates

Paid LTD Claims by Employee Group(Great-West Life claims only)

2013 2014 2015


Long Term Disabi l i ty (cont.)

Note: Other ++ Some diagnosis categories may have been combined to ensure employee rights to confidentiality.


37

17

8

7

6

3

14

7

4

1

Mental Disorders

Musculoskeletal & Connective Tissue

Nervous System & Sensory Organs

Cancer

Other++

Circulatory System

LTD Claims Incidence by DiagnosisFor the January 1 to December 31, 2015 Period

Closed Claims Open Claims

8%

9%

10%

22%

47%

4%


Healthcare Benefi ts

Source: Aon Hewitt, March 2, 2016

$1,421

$868

$1,459

$899

Medical

Dental

Claims per Capita

2015 2014

Increase

of 3.6%

Increase

of 2.7%


Healthcare Benefi ts (cont.)

Prescription Drugs47%

Paramedical Practitioners16%

Other MedicalServices 8%

Dental29%

Paid Healthcare ClaimsFor the January 1 to December 31, 2015 Period



Medical Services


Hospital

Ambulance

Drugs

Paramedical

Services and Supplies

Out-of-Province/Country

Other

Distribution of Paid ClaimsFor the January 1 to December 31, 2015 Period

Employee Spouse Child

$20,498 (593 occurrences)


$562,903 (4,725 occurrences)

$2,053,763 (48,463 occurrences)

$6,181,994

(141,051 occurrences)$7,188 (180 occurrences)



Prescript ion Drugs


$889,863

$498,028

$373,660

$366,619

$327,788

$317,230

$262,575

$255,192

$168,393

$139,628

Rheumatoid Arthritis

Diabetes

Depression

Skin Disorders

Blood Pressure

Cancer

Gastrointestinal/Ulcers

Viral Infections/Hepatitis

Cholesterol Disorders

Erectile Dysfunction

By Amount

21,399

11,871

8,392

8,280

6,878

6,571

5,080

4,565

4,231

4,128

Blood Pressure

Depression

Cholesterol Disorders

Diabetes

Antibiotics/Anti-infectives

Gastrointestinal/Ulcers

Skin Disorders

Eye-Ear-nose Throat Indicators

Narcotic Analgesics

Thyroid & Glandular

By DIN

Top 10 Therapeutic ClassificationsFor the May 1, 2015 to April 30, 2016 Period


Prescript ion Drugs (cont.)


$380,975

$289,711

$205,545

$113,304

$113,032

$105,452

$72,424

$70,474

$69,571

$69,358

Remicade Injection

Humira Injection

Harvoni Tablet

Imbruvica Capsule

Enbrel Injection

Stelara Injection

Avastin Injection

Victoza Injector

Apo-Esomeprazole Tablet

Exjade Tablet

Top 10 Drugs by Amount PaidFor the May 1, 2015 to April 30, 2016 Period

($4,379 per script)

($3,219 per script)

($7,341 per script)

($5,963 per script)

($2,216 per script)

($5,273 per script)

($5,173 per script)

($476 per script)

($151 per script)

($2,890 per script)

(Rheumatoid Arthritis)


(Viral Infections/Hepatitis)

(Cancer)


(Skin Disorders)

(Cancer)

(Diabetes)

(Gastrointestinal/Ulcers)

(Iron Overload Disorders)


Prescript ion Drugs (cont.)


• GWL has proposed that the University introduces Health Case Management (HCM)• Service available through Great-West Life at no additional cost

• Provides support to those who require specialty medications for complex, chronic conditions

• Currently applies to 15 drugs used to treat conditions including: • Asthma

• Crohn’s Disease

• Multiple Sclerosis

• Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis

• Rheumatoid Arthritis

• An individual who is prescribed a drug on the HCM list is assigned a health case manager who works with the individual and their physician to help identify the most effective and appropriate treatment, and provide ongoing support and monitoring

• Aon Hewitt recommends the introduction of HCM


Paramedical Practi t ioners

$781,863

$518,878

$178,397

$150,006

$135,645

$98,985

$106,260

$62,805

$17,417

$3,508

Massage Therapist

Physiotherapist

Chiropractor

Psychologist

Naturopath

Osteopath

Social Worker

Podiatrist

Speech Therapist

Dietician




Dental Services

Basic Services

Endo/Periodontics

Major Restorative

Orthodontia


Employee Spouse Child

$335,683

(2,487 occurrences)

$1,993,688

(48,486 occurrences)

$1,176,407

(11,717 occurrences)

$360,729

(2,293 occurrences)



UNIVERSITY OF

WATERLOO

Questions?


Out-of-Province Retirees Impact of Removing Maxima

Background

In October 2014, the P&B Committee approved the removal of the lifetime maxima that had applied to

the reimbursement of medical services for retirees residing in Canada but outside of Ontario. The

financial impact of this plan design change was expected to be minimal and its removal brought the plan

design in line with other employers with retiree benefits in the Canadian market. Members requested

an annual review to illustrate the financial impact of removing the maxima.

Annual Review

As of June 8, 2016, there are 72 individuals who reside outside of Ontario with coverage for medical

services through one of the retiree benefits plans.

Retiree Plan Previous Lifetime Maxima for Individuals Residing Outside of Ontario

Covered Individuals

Retiree Spouse

Old Plan (retired prior to January 1, 1996)

$30,000 inside and outside province of residence

7 1

Grandparented Plan (retired January 1, 1996 to June 6, 2000)

$50,000 ($40,000 outside province of residence)

22 11

Current Plan (retired after June 6, 2000)

$80,000 ($40,000 outside province of residence)

21 10

Combined 50 22

A lifetime maximum report from Great-West Life was reviewed and the table below provides a summary

of the claims totals to date.

% of Maxima Used

Under 25% 26% to 50% 51% to 75% 76% to 100% Combined

Old Plan 5 2 1 0 8

Grandparented Plan 20 10 0 3 33

Current Plan 29 1 1 0 31

Combined 54 13 2 3 72

There are three individuals in the Grandparented Plan who are approaching or have achieved the

previous maximum with claims totaling $33,568, $44,864 and $50,000 respectively. The individual who

reached the previous $50,000 maximum was notified of the plan design change but no new claims have

been reimbursed by Great-West Life.


Employee and Family Assistance Program Update re: Request for Proposals

Background

At the December 2015 P&B Committee meeting, the Associate Provost, Human Resources advised

members that sustained funding was approved for an Employee and Family Assistance Program (EFAP)

through a third party provider and that a Request for Proposal (RFP) process would commence shortly.

Furthermore, that this RFP process would be overseen by the EAP Committee which was reinstated in

December 2015 with membership and a reporting structure as defined in Policy 67.

To support employees in need during the RFP process, an interim EAP arrangement was implemented in

January 2016 through the hire of three counsellors on a part-time basis dedicated to employees and

located in the Occupational Health area of the Health Services building. This interim arrangement is

scheduled to cease at the end of August 2016.

The EAP Committee includes representation across each of the three employee groups as well as

Occupational Health, Counselling Services, and Human Resources. The Committee has been meeting on

a monthly to support the RFP process and to oversee the interim EAP arrangement.

Summary of RFP Process

The RFP process has been led by Procurement and Contract Services (P&CS) with stakeholder input

provided by the EAP Committee representatives and a core evaluation team was formed from within the

Committee membership. The following framework has governed this consultative and collaborative

process:

Month Description of Activity

January Requirements for the EFAP defined by the EAP Committee

February RFP document and evaluation criteria finalized by EAP Committee

RFP publicly advertised on Merx by P&CS

March Proposals received from interested vendors

April Initial evaluations of proposals conducted by core evaluation team; discussed at EAP Committee

Initial reference checks conducted by P&CS

May Presentations by short listed vendors to EAP Committee and additional stakeholders

EAP Committee discussed vendors’ EFAP proposals, presentations, and reference checks; identified additional information to request from short listed vendors

Additional reference checks conducted by P&CS

Core evaluation team met with P&CS to discuss the proposals, reference checks, presentations, and additional information; an opportunity to reconsider scores with rationale was provided

June Results of the RFP process were provided to the EAP Committee by P&CS

Next Steps

Homewood Health was determined to be the successful vendor through the RFP process. The EAP

Committee will continue to meet on a monthly basis to oversee the implementation of the EFAP with a

target launch date of September 1, 2016.


New Pension Administration System Implementation Update

Background

In June 2015, the P&B Committee approved the implementation of Ariel, a pension administration system

with Morneau Shepell (MS) as recommended through the results of a Request for Proposal (RFP) process led

by Procurement & Contract Services. The current BenPlus system that supports pension administration

activities will not be available after December 31, 2016.

A project plan with a target date of September 1, 2016 was developed and a Project Manager was assigned

by MS to support the implementation of Ariel. System resources from Information Systems and Technology

(IST) and Human Resources (HR) were assigned to support the project but additional subject matter experts

were not engaged to support the Pension Services team within HR.

Current State

Since project inception, some members of the project team have been standardly working in excess of a

standard workweek to manage the implementation while fulfilling their other regular responsibilities. Despite

these extra hours, the ability to achieve milestones to support a September 1, 2016 launch has been a

challenge. Recently, a couple of milestones have been missed which has had a ripple effect on subsequent

dates within the project:

1. Interfaces to populate Ariel with employee data from HR systems – initial development and delivery of 2 of 4 interfaces for testing was delayed by 1 month (i.e. early April to early May)

2. Testing of Ariel’s configuration for benefit calculations and statements – 1st round of testing required 5 weeks instead of the planned 3 weeks (at least 3 more rounds of UAT is required)

Factors that have contributed to the above include a period of sick leave for a key resource (HR Business

Analyst) and other priority projects that have required time of the members of the project team. In addition,

a knowledge gap with respect to interface requirements from PeopleSoft to Ariel on the part of MS was

identified by IST which has contributed to development delays and challenges.

As with all project plans, especially those that involve long timelines, buffer periods were built in to address

unforeseen circumstances but these buffer periods have proven to be insufficient. As a result of these factors

and the corresponding revisions to the project plan, the initial target launch date is unattainable.

Proposal

Change the launch date from September 1 to November 1, 2016; MS has agreed to waive any corresponding additional implementation fees

Assign a Project Manager from within HR to assist with the internal non-vendor pieces of the project

Hire a temporary resource to support the pension team with the regular administration and some implementation activities; est. cost of $18,000 to $20,000 for the July to December 2016 period


pension & benefits committee friday 17 june …...2016/06/17 · the next meeting is on friday...

Documents