# Police & Fire Subcommittee 3-12-25 - March 12, 2025 > Auto-transcribed civic record · March 12, 2025 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6365 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6365?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2025-03-12 - **Last revised**: March 27, 2026 - **Length**: 2,153 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Pension Board convened at 9:31 on March 12, 2025. The meeting covered three agenda items, all of which were informational in nature: a discussion of a CERS Pension Fund access issue, a review of recruitment and pension fund transferability, and agenda setting and prioritization. No votes were taken and no public comments were heard during the session. ## Attendance The following members were present at the March 12, 2025 meeting: - Ken Armstrong - Aaron - Bill - Glenda - Tommy No members were recorded as absent or late. ## Contested Items - **CERS Pension Fund Access Issue**: A heated discussion arose regarding police recruits and officers who were unable to access their County Employees Retirement System (CERS) funds. The disagreement centered on the question of responsibility — specifically, whether it was the city's obligation to resolve the access issue or whether the matter should be directed to the pension board itself. The discussion did not yield a clearly documented resolution in the available record, and no specific outcome or assigned party was identified in the meeting data. ## CERS Pension Fund Access Issue [timestamp: 01:00] The meeting included a discussion regarding an issue affecting police recruits and officers who are unable to access funds held in the County Employees Retirement System (CERS) due to their current city employment status. Key speakers on this item were **Ken Armstrong** and **Aaron**, who presented the matter for informational purposes. **Key concerns raised included:** - Police recruits and officers are being blocked from accessing their CERS funds as a result of their city employment status - Affected individuals are unable to transfer or withdraw their funds from CERS - **Dormancy fees** are being assessed on these accounts, meaning employees are incurring ongoing financial costs while having no ability to act on or manage their own funds The discussion was informational in nature, with no formal action taken or vote recorded at this time. The item appears to have been brought forward to make officials aware of the situation facing affected personnel, particularly the compounding concern that employees are being penalized through dormancy fees on accounts they cannot access or move. No resolution or next steps were documented in the available data for this item. ## Recruitment and Pension Fund Transferability [timestamp: 05:08] The meeting included a discussion on the relationship between pension fund transferability and recruitment, examining how the portability of pension benefits may affect the city's ability to attract and retain employees. Key speakers on this item were **Ken Armstrong** and **Aaron**, who engaged in a discussion around whether the issue of pension fund transferability falls within the purview of the city or the pension board to address. The discussion centered on the practical impact that pension transferability — or the lack thereof — has on recruitment efforts. The ability for prospective employees to transfer pension funds from previous employers or to future employers can be a significant factor in a candidate's decision to accept a position, and the conversation explored how this dynamic may be influencing the city's competitiveness in hiring. A central question raised during the discussion was one of jurisdiction and responsibility: should the city government take steps to address pension transferability concerns as part of its broader recruitment strategy, or does this issue more appropriately fall under the authority and responsibility of the pension board? The item was informational in nature, and no formal action or decision was taken as a result of the discussion. ## Agenda Setting and Prioritization [timestamp: 12:40] The board engaged in a discussion on organizing both short-term and long-term agenda items for upcoming meetings. Key speakers in this discussion were Ken Armstrong and Aaron. The conversation centered on prioritizing several substantive policy topics that require the board's attention, including: - **The DROP (Deferred Retirement Option Plan) program** — identified as an item requiring agenda time and further deliberation - **20-year retirement provisions** — flagged as a topic to be scheduled for discussion - **Disability considerations** — noted as another area needing to be addressed in the board's planning The discussion was informational in nature, focused on sequencing and scheduling these items rather than reaching decisions on the underlying policy questions themselves. No final determinations were made on the substantive matters; the outcome of this agenda item was to acknowledge the topics that need to be worked through and to begin organizing how they will be taken up in the near and longer term. --- ## Full transcript I can't stop making fun of me. I can't help it. Do you want one of these? Do you have any more? I appreciate that you made sense of that. Alright. Okay. Are we ready? Yes. 9.31. We can do it. Okay. Thank you. I will call the meeting to order. This is stuff that was submitted for last year. I just wanted to see if there was anything we wanted to add or anything. I just want to set an agenda. We'll probably be starting on this looking at it seriously for the next month. I'm not going to wait until the last minute. There was an issue that was brought to me by Ken Armstrong and can you I'm going to try to remember what it was because I was down in Florida thinking about things. I can give you an overview of it. Okay. Thank you. We have several police recruits and officers that have paid into CERS from a previous employer but they cannot access those funds because they're an employee of the city. Even though they're not paying into CERS pension they're paying into our pension fund. CERS or KPPA says that since they're an employee of the city that they cannot access those funds. Are they wanting to withdraw the money? I think one was wanting to withdraw her funds but she can't because she's an actual city employee even though she's not paying into their pension. I foresee that that's a state issue and not us because we can't change their statutes or their rules. She's wanting to withdraw it. Just to get the money I'm assuming. They won't even let you do a direct transfer or rollover at all. So your money sits there dormantly and it starts accruing dormancy fees. So they said it's going to have to sit there and it's just eating away at all of your money. So I fortunately wound up with a loophole that I was able to pull mine out without that 10% penalty but they won't even let you do the direct transfer or rollover. But it affects all the state. So mine was locked up in KRS. The Kentucky Retirement System. But the same thing applies with CERS. As long as you're not charging dormancy fees. They're keeping your money and they're charging you to keep it. If you don't contribute to it then it gets dormancy fees but you can't contribute to it because it's not one-off payroll deductions. So you're stuck in a lose-lose situation. So I had the same thing. I don't know how much we can So what are we I don't know. What are we wanting? We go to the state and ask They want to take it out? I guess we want them to have access to their funds. So they can either roll it over to an IRA or something like that or they can pay the penalties I guess and take it home. But again it's not just for us. It's going to affect everybody. Well at a minimum they shouldn't charge a dormancy fee if they're serving elsewhere. That's ridiculous. I did not know that. You know who those pension funds are. Let's face it they're so underfunded they want to keep all the money they keep. But still it's kind of a rip-off. Ken sent it to me and wanted to put it under the legislative subcommittee and I said okay I'll bring it up and I have brought it up. So what is the I mean nothing else I guess as a pension board we can send a letter or something to Is this even a pension issue or is this more of a city issue? Well I mean it's been brought up before as far as kind of the recruitment component of being able to roll in as far as bring on new members the transferability of the fund to bring people in. We also wanted to be cautious about the transferability. I'm saying like from our standard our way of looking at it like would it be better for the city to bring this up with the state as opposed to the pension board bringing it up with the state. I don't know how it works now. I mean I haven't delved into It doesn't appear that either has much sway over the Right. I think it's affecting our current police potentially fire and so maybe why it was brought up potentially for the pension fund but it is definitely a But that's a recruitment issue that's a hiring issue that's not necessarily a pension issue that's more of a city issue I'm just trying to push it off our plate like so we don't I don't see an issue with us taking a position on it and even where it talks about the purpose of this board recruitment is one of the things that talks about so you're not outside the parameters of why this board was created And I do think this is a twofold type situation we're worried about and I think what Ken is worried about is people not being able to get their money out of CERS so that's one issue and then we had previously discussed given people the option like Aaron brought up to use their time towards That's the one down here That's the one down here which would be if they had time that we would do similar to ghost time purchases to where it would be supposedly fund neutral cost neutral But that's what this one is down here on the long term item But that's not saying that we would move their money over to us either They just want access to their money I think there's a better venue for this So we don't want to address it? Is that what I'm hearing? That's my thought Aaron? I'm not sure Where this falls to be perfectly honest I'm happy to look into it I think we as a subcommittee and as a board on the whole have struggled with the recruitment argument being the responsibility of this board or not and how much into that these decisions play and do not play So I think we talk about it and then we back away from it and then we talk about it and back away from it But you know the solvency of the board is dependent upon bringing in members in my opinion at some juncture So the fund is reliant upon continuation So wouldn't addressing the reciprocity address this issue? It may not be what somebody wants or doesn't address it Am I missing something? I don't think If they come on here and I know some of it's not CERS some of it's the other retirement system but from the CERS standpoint if they're in the police fund after their CERS if you do the reciprocity Well however you said that word I cannot say that word, I'll butcher it I think this one was put on there just so that if they had time in that but had drawn their money out that they could get credit for those years of service over on our side I don't think That was the intent Yeah, the intent was not to move their money Yes But the intent was not to move their funds from CERS or KPPA to buy into the fund That was not the intent of this one anyway I mean it can be Some of that might have been like nobody knew that they weren't able to take that money out Right And some have taken their money, I mean most of them have it's just if they left that one job saying 911 operator left and then went straight into police, she didn't have time to withdraw it out because she went from one to the other Like with you, it was KSP, right, like something the state police, yeah, so he came here, so I mean, just kind of the same scenario changing careers, but Yeah, quickly, to where there wasn't a dead period of, oh I can get my money out before I start this new job kind of thing I mean I say that's not uncommon You leave one for another I don't I think it's fewer than more that have that scenario, but there are probably a handful of people that are in that scenario Well as you said, recruitment I mean, you know, pension is basically a pyramid You gotta get people at the bottom, you gotta get new people Yeah And so I think it is kind of part of pension Yeah, I mean I don't think it's our sole focus No, by any means But I don't think it's something we can ignore either So we can add it on to the list and look into it I mean, that's pretty much what we're doing here anyway is, what are we keeping on the list what are we not keeping on the list So we can just We'll just add it I think probably putting it on the list but I just think it's gonna have to not only be the pension but I think the city's gonna have to step up a little bit there Okay, we'll add it to the list So I mean it'll be a focused and I can't see that the city would be opposed to that Probably if it could help even a little bit in recruiting it's worth it to me Yeah Okay This is probably one of those things where every situation is unique and nuanced and you'll have to really understand what is different Well, I mean, you know I mean, there's the basic construct but everything's gonna be a little bit different We need to probably contact Bill I was getting ready to say Bill, what are y'all doing over there Hey Bill Yeah Bill calls me sometimes Other things Important things in life, you know, vision Yeah, that's good But I mean I think we need to at least contact him and see if there is any way we can be done Yeah Okay, it's on the list Anything else need to be added? Is excluding your issue here? Yes Alright, I just want to make sure it's on there It is on there Anything we want to take off? Or Are we still working towards a drop? Are we still working on drop? That's gonna be a multi-year process Alright, so I think we still need to work towards it Yeah, you're not gonna be the first one to get a drop Yes Alright, so why don't we do this So, do we want to leave drop on the long term? Do we want to move smoothing on the short term list? We need to start having that conversation Okay, so we'll move it to the short term list Do we want to put the I guess we really need to do the SERS system on the short term list as well So we'll move that Disability Keep it on long term or put it on short term? I think that's good Let's look at it Okay Cause we're gonna keep drop on the long term Right 20-year retirement, short term, long term Short term Alright, 13th check is the only one we have left Short term, long term Might as well move it to short term Okay, so the only thing that's gonna be left on long term will be the drop Okay To get to the drop, we're gonna have to have a whole, cause we looked at this When was it? Was it when you first hired on Is that when we looked at it or was it before you? Oh, it was, I was here It was when Beatty was here, so yeah I still have the book Some of this is like the 20-year retirement disability we're gonna have to figure out before the drop That's gonna affect all the costs Okay, so we've got everything moved to short term except for drop and that will stay on the long term Anything needed to be added? Are we adding it? I've already added what, Ken Armstrong That's gonna be put on the short term Are you sending this list out? I will I will just move them Alright We probably need to contact Ken and just explain the issue Well, I'll just tell him that we're looking at it and that it We're gonna dig into it I'll send him an email Okay, that'll do it Okay, I've got his email still Anything else? Alright We're adjourned People, we need Brock, Glenda Tommy to stay You gotta wait 15 minutes Glenda, is there a subcommittee you're not on? Doesn't appear