# Police & Fire Pension Subcommittee Meeting - June 16, 2025 > Auto-transcribed civic record · June 16, 2025 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6481 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6481?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2025-06-16 - **Last revised**: March 1, 2026 - **Length**: 14,309 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 Subcommittee convened on June 16, 2025, to address a five-item agenda covering a range of pension-related policy and administrative matters. The subcommittee took 4 votes during the session and heard 2 informational presentations, with no public comments received. Key business included a presentation on smoothing and amortization policy, approval of an election process, and an informational item on CERS service purchase. Two agenda items — Health Insurance at Retirement and Disability and 20-Year Retirement — were tabled for future consideration. No presiding officer, meeting time, or location information was recorded in the available meeting data. ## Attendance The following members were recorded for the meeting held on 2025-06-16. **Present:** - Tommy - Todd - Erin - Brock - Dave **Absent:** - Glenda - Greg Marlin No members were recorded as late. ## Votes and Decisions Four actions were taken during the June 16, 2025 meeting. - **Remove details on how a vote will happen** [timestamp: 58:12]: Motioned by Brock and seconded by Erin, this measure passed by voice vote 3–0. Tommy, Erin, and Brock all voted in favor; no votes were cast against and no abstentions were recorded. - **Table health insurance at retirement opting back in** [timestamp: 1:00:27]: This item was tabled. No motion maker, seconder, or vote count details are available for this action. - **Table disability and 20-year retirement discussion** [timestamp: 1:18:57]: This item was also tabled. As with the prior item, no motion maker, seconder, or vote count details are available. - **Move disability, 20-year retirement, and 13th check or COLAs to long-term items** [timestamp: 1:33:02]: This measure passed by voice vote 3–0. Tommy, Erin, and Brock all voted in favor; no votes were cast against and no abstentions were recorded. No motion maker or seconder is recorded for this item. ## Contested Items - **Disability and 20-Year Retirement** — The committee engaged in a lengthy and heated discussion regarding potential changes to disability benefits and the possible introduction of a 20-year retirement option. Members expressed differing opinions on the impact and feasibility of these proposed changes. The structured data does not specify which individual members took particular positions, nor does it record a definitive outcome from the discussion. [timestamp: not available] *Note: Limited detail was available in the source data for this item. Specific positions, vote outcomes, and participant names were not recorded in the extracted materials.* ## Smoothing and Amortization Policy Presentation [timestamp: 00:59] Todd presented on the smoothing and amortization policy, focusing on the system's current amortization approach and potential changes to how unfunded liabilities are paid down over time. **Key Topics Covered:** - **Contribution volatility:** Todd highlighted the potential for significant volatility in required contributions under the current amortization structure, identifying this as a key concern for planning and budgeting purposes. - **Layered amortization approach:** Todd recommended transitioning to a layered amortization method as a means of addressing contribution volatility. Under this approach, gains and losses would be amortized in separate, distinct layers rather than being rolled into a single running balance. **Outcome:** The presentation was informational in nature. No formal action was taken as a result of this agenda item. ## Election Process [timestamp: 58:12] The committee discussed proposed changes to the election process, specifically around removing specific details governing how voting would occur. The intent behind the change was to allow for greater flexibility in managing elections going forward. Brock and Erin were the key speakers during this discussion. The proposal centered on streamlining the relevant language by taking out prescriptive details about voting procedures, which would give those administering elections more latitude in how they conduct the process rather than being bound to a specific method outlined in the governing document. The committee ultimately approved the proposed change. ## Health Insurance at Retirement [timestamp: 1:00:27] The committee held a discussion on the topic of health insurance options for retirees, specifically examining the possibility of allowing retirees who had previously opted out of the health insurance plan to opt back in. Erin was the key speaker on this agenda item. The discussion centered on whether the current policy should be revised to provide retirees with the flexibility to re-enroll in the health insurance plan after having chosen to leave it. No additional details regarding specific concerns raised, data presented, or the scope of the proposed policy change are available from the meeting record. The item was ultimately **tabled**, meaning no final decision or resolution was reached at this meeting and the matter will be taken up at a future date. ## Disability and 20-Year Retirement [timestamp: 1:18:57] The committee revisited an ongoing discussion regarding disability benefits and the possibility of establishing a 20-year retirement option. Speakers Tommy and Brock participated in the discussion, which referenced previous conversations on these topics that had taken place prior to this meeting. The committee acknowledged the need for a united front in approaching these issues, suggesting that alignment among members or stakeholders is considered important to advancing this matter. The discussion appears to be part of a continuing deliberation rather than a first-time introduction of the topic. No final resolution was reached during this session. The item was tabled, indicating that further discussion or action will be deferred to a future meeting. ## CERS Service Purchase [timestamp: 1:21:37] The committee held a discussion regarding the possibility of allowing members to purchase service time through the County Employees Retirement System (CERS). Dave was the key speaker on this item, leading the conversation around the mechanics, costs, and potential benefits associated with such a purchase option. The discussion centered on what it would mean for members to buy back or acquire additional service credit through CERS, with consideration given to both the financial implications for individual members and any broader impact on the system. The committee examined the cost side of a service purchase arrangement, weighing whether the option would provide meaningful value to members relative to what they would be required to pay. No formal action was taken on this item. The discussion was informational in nature, serving as an opportunity for the committee to explore the topic and better understand the parameters of a potential CERS service purchase before any further steps might be considered. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (3-0): Remove details on how a vote will happen - **Motion** — tabled (0-0): Table health insurance at retirement opting back in - **Motion** — tabled (0-0): Table disability and 20-year retirement discussion - **Motion** — passed (3-0): Move disability, 20-year retirement, and 13th check or COLAs to long-term items --- ## Full transcript call a meeting to order. Todd we just have one laptop in here so no one else is going to be on camera but whoever asked you questions or whatever we'll just tell them who you're talking to okay will that work? Todd can you go ahead and start kind of explaining your presentation here about the smoothing and all that okay? This is Tommy. address because your it's your amortization policy that's the policy that you are used to pay off your unfunded liability and that is set in your statute the state statute so the board really doesn't have any control over it and right now it's it's a single closed amortization period that was originally set at 30 years and now we're in July the last time that we completed for you was July 124 and there's 19 years remaining on the amortization period and it is a good initially it was a good procedure because you're basically the goal is to pay off your unfunded liability you know at the end of that 30 year period so it does accelerate funding but one of the problems that it can lead to is it can lead to significant contribution volatility and and what and when that that volatility will really hit if you don't make any changes when you get down to the very end so say when there's five years left and say there's a significant asset loss that entire asset losses we have to be would be made up and in that remaining five year period so they can lead to significant volatility and one of the reasons why I want to share this with you and I started talking with this last year was because I have a client who had the same amortization policy you had and they were down to four years and when and after the 22 asset loss their contribution rate was going to triple essentially so I think it's a great time for you guys to think about this now because because the you know you're only at 18 years on amortization policy right now so we go to the next slide slide three this is the KRS statute 61 592 this is the amortization policy that is used by Kentucky retirement systems right now and essentially what it's what they did was they started off with a 30-year closed period starting in 2019 but any additional unfunded liability or change in the unfunded liability going forward after 2019 would be amortized over closed 20-year periods so say the unfunded liability changed by ten million dollars that additional ten million dollars and it could be a an additional cost or an additional savings would get amortized over it's a separate 20-year period and as actuaries we call this layered amortization and you can see all the different sources of the unfunded there at the bottom and they're all over 20 years that be legislative changes that be changing the benefits changes in actuarial methods or assumptions and then actuarial gains and losses go to the next slide so now you know what is the actual impact or what can what can happen you know based on what you're currently doing versus this new or versus this layered amortization approach what we what we did was was prepare some projections for you and we did two kinds we did deterministic and stochastic so the difference is deterministic is we don't change the assumptions we assumed all the assumptions are met but then the stochastic one is really going to paint the picture on this and this is where we we basically stochastically generate asset returns in the future and that creates the volatility which is which will allow you to see the impact of this so we go to the next slide five and we project we project the population going forward and there is a 22 there but it should be from 24 on and you can see that we have our initial inactive liability our inactive participants there in the blue each year going forward a person leaves the population we replace them with a hypothetical new entrant so those are the red bars there and you'll see how we maintain the population you know steady going forward and then you can see that we have the current retirees that's the gray and then we have the new retirees that that eventually retire from the active population so that's what our projection or what our somebody I just got a message to share my screen is that yeah I was going to ask you if you could share your presentation is that possible yes thank you everyone has copies but it might be easier to see what you're talking about thanks so can you see it now yes okay so here's just the projected population and then we do valuations on all these every year we do evaluation on on each of these populations and determine you know what your contribution rate would be you know in every year so all right so now we go to the next slide so if we started this in 25 we you can see that and this is just a snapshot of what your unfunded liability to potentially look like in 2034 and so and that this is if nothing changes if nothing changes so so you'll see that this is we still are going to keep our transition base and we're going to still we're still on that 19-year schedule so in 2034 there's nine years left on that and you and you so you can see that the the outstanding balance is 245 million and the payment is 35 million and then you can see that subsequent to that there was in the 25 and 26 there's some losses and then and and here these are the original amounts but here are the balances as of 2034 so you can actually see how they're getting paid off and and after in 2027 we start to get some gains and then once the and so you can see that you know your total unfunded liability in 2034 would be projected to be 265 million dollars and here's the payment of 37 million dollars and this total is made up of all these different components or layers and you can see here we have the 20 years for the for the new experience gain in this case and then the prior year there's 19 years left on 18 years left on it and and so forth all the way down to the 25 experience loss which has 11 years on it. The one thing that's good about this layer of memorization is that you can actually go back and it kind of gives you an accounting of your total unfunded liability. Where are the sources? So because in addition to the gains and losses in here we could have change in assumptions and things like that that we would separately amortize and you can identify them and so when somebody asks you like how did we get the 265 million dollar unfunded liability you can just go back and go look here are all the different sources. So here's the projected contribution rate and this is deterministic so no and the reason why I'm showing you this is because because by switching we're really not changing the cost of the plan because most of your unfunded liabilities can be made up of your initial transition base that's you know from the 2024 evaluation. So once that gets paid off the cost of the plan just declines because we're not paying for any more unfunded liability and you can see under the recommended policy and the term policy that it really doesn't have much of a difference. And so but when we get into the stochastic results is where you're going to really see the impact of what you're currently doing compared to what we or what I would recommend that you switch to. So and then here we show your projected unfunded liability and you know again it's up to over a hundred percent after the transition base is paid for. So nothing you know nothing crazy here and to be honest nothing there to really make you change your mind in my opinion. So in order to show you the real impact or the potential impact of what I mentioned we've done a stochastic analysis on these projections and basically the stochastic modeling is very sophisticated and what we've done is we've turned the investment return so we're you know your long-term assumed rate of return right now seven percent. So we've turned that into an expended return and a standard deviation and and what we did was we just randomly generate the random return every year and we're doing that over the projection period which is I did do 30 years of results but and then we repeat that process over a thousand times basically and then we rank then we rank those results and what we saw percentiles. So you know this methodology is often used by investment consultants when they do asset liability studies. I'm pretty sure you guys get one done by your investment consultant and you know they're more complex and you know kind of difficult to understand but hopefully I can do a good job to show you what I'm talking about here today. So here is a you know here's an example of the annual return so that that blue line is your assumed rate of return but here are just three different trials you know just you know I told you I did a thousand trials here's here's what three of them actually look like so you can see how how random in nature they are. And then same thing with the funded ratio these would be when we do the projection here's three different trials of our the funded ratio essentially you know here's a very good result where you're up to 160% funded and here's one where you know you were just that you know basically based on target but you can see how they're not smooth and that's because of the random nature of the assumed or the annual return on the assets. So here's the projected employer contribution under the current policy and you can see the blue line is what we call the 50th percentile and keep in mind this is everything is going to be paid off in 2042 because of that closed amortization period that we had 19 years left in 2024. So what I call the 50th percentile is kind of the middle of the road but the two gray lines represent the 25th to the 50th percentile or 25th to the 75th percentile and the up here this 75th percentile or the 25th percentile I'm sorry up here you'll see that for the 25th percentile result for contribution so in this case I'm saying 25% is a bad result. This is following a pattern of not you know not hitting the assumed rate of return and then you get to the you get to the final year and you can see that the employer's cost is going to jump up to a hundred and fifty percent of compensation and that's because the current amortization policy would be one year left essentially at that time and you'd have to pay off any any unfunded liability that was remaining in 2042. The blue line here is kind of the middle of the road is what we'd expect you know 50% of the time and then the 75th percentile here is better than this would be better than average better returns over over the term of the over the projection period and you can see that you're you know under that situation that the contribution rate you know reduces it's you know you're 100% better by 2033 so but what I want to say thank you to is not not the good case but the bad case. So here we show just the correspondent funded ratios on that and you know we're you know you know between the 25th and 75th percentile you're going to be over 100% funded but between the 20th 50th and the 25th percentile you're going to be under 100% funded during that time period so this kind of tracks with that 160% so what happens next the following year here is that you would become 100% funded because you're going to have to make an enormous contribution to get there and statutorily you would have to do as well. So now we go to the layered amortization we see that there's not much difference you know in our you know in our median contribution rate but you can see that here this is our you know our potential worst case scenario in terms of contribution rate and instead of being it's just under it's just under 70% of compensation you know it's it's half it's half the worst case scenario that we you know if compared to here so this is about 150% of compensation and here we're just under 70% so so really with the role of the layered amortization does it just it really it smooths out the long-term cost of the plan and then here you can see the projected funding ratios it really doesn't change the projected trajectory of the plan in terms of the funding of it and we're still in the same ballpark essentially it's just again again it's just avoiding the possibility of you know for having to put in a hundred sixty percent of compensation in a single year so so really now just to you know that's really kind of the big picture here is you know the current amortization period or current the likely worst case scenario under your current amortization policy could lead to an employer contribution of 150% of compensation compared to that likely worst case of 67% using a layered amortization in that you know and what I would recommend is really you know it is adopting that that KRS statute style of amortization but I would not change your current unfunded liability as of 2024 we would continue to pay it off on you know on on the current trajectory or current 19-year amortization policy but starting with the 25 or whenever you know how long these changes can take to get through but whenever they you know whatever change date and here I've just put in 25 as an example but to begin you know following that layered process where we just add those new 20-year amortization basis for that for the changes on the unfunded liability but knowing that are really the main you know once you pay off your initial base based on the 24 evaluation you know your plan is going to be you know almost likely 100% funded so it's just any of these new sources we're going to spread that out and and with my experiences you know they tend to offset you know they tend to have gains and losses and usually add up you know pretty close to zero unless you have a significant asset loss you know like we did in 22 for example or you know back in 2008 so so that's kind of my in terms of the presentation is you know I'm recommending you go to that layered amortization and to continue on with your current amortization base but you know any new new unfunded liability you know that way you're not undoing what you were trying to do when you when you initially you know had your pension reform and all that so so that that's that kind of summarizes my my remarks is there any questions or are you going to go back to this slide here you can see Todd would it make it should it make a significant difference if it starts in 26 and not 25 no no I mean I just don't want you to be the problem is and I ran into this with the client I mentioned earlier but they were down and we were doing valuations every two years for them so it kind of slipped through the radar it wasn't paying attention and and it got you know we were it got down to four years and then we had that loss in 22 that everybody had and like I said it it significantly increased the contribution rate and and so you know so we had to you know I had to work there the state you know the state has to review a lot of their this is in Florida so the state has to review a lot of the stuff so so we had to work with the state that kind of allow them to help us change their funding policy because you cannot change you know once a base is it you know once an amortization base is established in Florida you can't change it so so the timing of this it doesn't have to be done today or this year but it's something that should I think you would you know benefit from it you know in the next couple of years if you could get it addressed in the legislature and you know since I'm you know you're kind of following what the state is doing with the big plans so I can't see or imagine that there would be any pushback on it so it looks like from 21 to 22 and that was when we changed our assumed rate of return that was when we added approximately a hundred and twenty million dollars to our unfunded liability other than our assumed rate of return what is if you could tick off the list of the biggest drivers what what follows yeah the biggest drivers going forward because right now you're using generational mortality and your discount rate is at seven percent which is you know it the current interest rates and everything say where they're at I can't imagine that being unreasonable going forward so and your mortality table you know you're using generational mortality so any change in mortality going forward is just going to be a tweak there's not going to be any significant changes so you know going forward it's just going to be investment volatility essentially you know if we have a minus you know if you have a minus 20% return in a single year that's going to be you know as your assets get bigger because they've grown you know that you know that that gets bigger that that number that volatility grows with it so so it's just going to be asset volatility and you can see that you know we're still recognizing that loss in 22. So you can see that 26 loss that's being driven by assets. They have an assumption in their tax world of a 4% pay growth I believe. How much do active members and annualized compensation move the needle? Not really because we anticipate we anticipate salary increases in our valuation so it's not um it's not you know that's typically not a huge thing it's it does it does I will say it's volatile because what happens is in the public sector you have pay increases then you don't for a while and then you'll see a lot of past you know gains due to that but then you can see years followed up where you do have losses but it's really because there were salary increases and you know maybe there was you weren't hiring as many people because you're you know you're trying to save money and now you know you bring some new people on and so forth so so that that does produce some that does produce gains and losses but it's not as much as changing assumptions and investment volatility. Currently how often do those things get looked at like the rate of return the mortality table is that every five year experience period? So as a course of policy would that be the same thing you would do an experience study still every five years if there were needed to be changes then you would apply a 20-year layer whatever you needed to change associated with that? Yes. Okay and then I mean it's a good policy to review the assumptions although we do review them after you know for every valuation but um but it's a good policy to review them and the board to review them because even though we recommend them you guys do adopt them so it's a good policy. So conceivably you wouldn't recommend changing that part of the board policy here just the concept of laying over 20 years instead of on a fixed closed period? Yes I mean I would recommend if you could get the amortization policy out of the legislature period that would be better because then this could just be a board decision to do you know to change your amortization policy. One other follow-up how do we currently treat market gains and losses and would that change in this 20-year laying process? Your unfunded liability was projected to be um your 2025 valuation now would include this extra five million dollars and instead of paying that off over 20 years that that's going to be thrown in and lumped in over 18 years and now the and now if we go to the 26 valuation we're expending you know a loss here of 36.8 million and now that whole loss is going to get lumped in and thrown in under in 17 years so every year we go forward we either add unfunded liability or reduce unfunded liability and that gets amortized over one less year all together in one big bucket. So so is the the fact that it gets smoothed over 20 years each time that's what helps make that volatility less it's you're not as widespread on the buckshot so to speak it's it's a little more clustered. That is correct and it's also yes that is correct. Todd this amortization policy how long has that been around that's something that's fairly new? So later yeah so later amortization policy has been used in the private sector for a long time but and I've been doing public sector work since 97 and when I switched to that they the public sector always used this kind of just big one big amortization base like this but in 97 most plans were over a hundred percent funded so it didn't really have any ramifications but since 2008 I would say after the big you know the Great Recession you know the Society of Actuaries and the Conference of Consulting Actuaries they've been they've been issuing white papers on you know army policies and so actuaries have started to this layered amortization is becoming it's really taking hold in the public sector now and it's you know since about 2008 but the reason why I wouldn't you know why you were okay starting off with that 30 initially I just don't think you know having amortization periods past 20 years is a good idea so now that you're below that at 20 year threshold now is like a perfect time to think about it you know and to you know in my opinion to do it because if you have long amortization periods like say 30 years if you think about your mortgage right if you get it through a brand-new 30-year mortgage your first payments aren't paying anything it's all interest right so then anytime you get another gain or loss you know they just those gains or losses you take so long to pay them off that they that you don't really make headway on it so I mean most actuaries don't recommend now you know any you know they don't recommend you know typically 20 years now it's kind of where actuaries are sitting at in terms of a sound funding policy or sound amortization policy hey Todd quick question when did the state implement the Larry was it 2019 okay that's what I was thinking yeah okay wouldn't be left here he did that and then this the CRS got a four-year smooth so TRS was different anybody have any other questions for Todd okay I don't say anything Todd I really appreciate you taking your time and explain this because it's not easy and you know next year's board meeting or this year's I guess we're already at 25 I'll probably do it again just to kind of keep showing you okay appreciate it all right well thank you very much you thoughts what you think it's off quiet well it's it you know it's to be honest we didn't have anything the board had nothing to do with this 30 policy got shoved down our throat but now it's come back to haunt obviously the urban kind of government because it employees contribution is set so we started in 20 in 2006 is that correct that was the first you know no when it started no it's actually 2013 yeah this was at the 2013 changes yeah yeah okay yeah it started probably in 2014 13 to 43 it was a actuarials that we did well originally it started when I came on the board we did one every three years an actuary and based everything on it actually for three years and they would get it down to two and then yeah it was open-ended yes yeah and and then we changed it quite a few years ago to every two years every two years and then we got it down to a year I think right we did every two years with a every other year we did a short right one that didn't count didn't change the actuarial right so the funding the funding yeah was that until 2013 when it was open is that when they were doing like the I've heard of like interest only and it never really closed the funding gap is that we would request to the council what they needed to contribute whatever the funding amount was to be contributed and they chose to either abide by that or not abide by that there was nobody that was holding them accountable in a sense so now that it's closing yeah well it's something yeah what what happened was back in the the 90s we you know we saw that there was a problem and the internal order of police filed a suit against the urban county government for underfunding because they were paying what there was a minimum which had gone up over the years and I think it was somewhere around 18% or something that it was a minimum it was 15 or 18 I think 18 and what we found out that if we were ruled against because the board was not setting a proper rate or wouldn't set the rate at all we were just assuming they were going to follow the actuarial assumption so it took a number of years to get the board to finally agree to set the rate and then the urban county government didn't do it and then I mean for their officers filed a suit in 2003 it was ruled against here locally but on the appellate and the Supreme Court they reversed it and and basically they said that whatever we rate we set the board says the city is required to contribute so that's how it got to where it is gotcha nice to be able to know about this stuff so my concern is looking at I got a lot of people so looking at this is July of 2014 our unfunded liability at that time was a hundred and eighty million six thirty four three ninety six as of 2020 and so since from 14 to 20 board said city may contributions were done our unfunded liability went to two hundred and sixty three million three sixty eight one twenty four with investment returns higher than what we expected much higher with contributions being made per our actuarial assumptions with all things done according to how we thought they needed to be staffed and staffing 2021 we our actuarial liability dropped a little bit we went to 223 and then from 21 to 22 we said okay rate of return assumption we recognize probably can't hold where we thought and we dropped it to 7% that added a hundred and twenty million dollars so we went from 223 to three hundred and forty two million dollars unfunded liability now we're up to three hundred and eighty eight point six in 2024 2025 had a little blip five million that he's showing 26 is looking not so good in spite of going to 50 almost what 51% contribution rate in spite of still doing better in returns still all the things and so what you get is so large that regardless of a statute the city's not going to be able to bond enough outside of here to fund nobody's going to loan them three hundred and eighty eight million dollars I mean you know we're still 20 years down the road but it is still climbing in spite of the contribution rate going up and up and up and up and up and our returns doing better and better and better and I'm not sure how to curb that activity I hear what Todd is saying and the best case scenario still is returning to us a contribution rate of 70 70 some odd percent which is better than 140 percent because that can't happen but I'm I'm I'm still missing why we're not gaining ground and that's where that's why I'm just very confused with this whole process does it does it have anything to do with the fact that the total market value or the asset value is higher because like we're still roughly in that 70 ish 80 range no matter what yeah that's where we stay even though even though the absolute dollars or more is that is that is that what's throwing things off like I mean if you look at it as a percent value well and I've asked Todd before and he gave me he said well you're just paying interest and I'm like but my house is getting more expensive like I don't feel like I'm paying interest it seems like the cost of my house has gotten more expensive it's not what I guess things going down but I guess I was wondering if I could see if you think of it like when you get a mortgage right you buy a house for $300,000 you're gonna pay it off over 30 years over that time the assessment of the house gets bigger but what you're what you owe doesn't so well what she said what she's saying is is like as the prices of your house goes up your mortgage gets bigger because now you have a principal that's the way I'm understanding what she's saying but the things that's making it more expensive are the misses on the mortality assumptions the inflation assumptions asset volatility getting and so that's why you're having this well the asset volatility is the big the big yes come into play as well but not as big as the asset but we're meeting our assumptions aren't we oh but we also just lower them we did and that that is a hundred twenty million dollars yep got it that one was on us we you know and we may when we talked about that we said okay if we miss this one worst-case scenario we get there sooner right yeah good deal we can you know we'll take that gamble all day long we'll get paid off sooner but it doesn't look like it's happening well only let me we're only a couple years into that but it doesn't look like we're trending that way just yet but would you really see any savings if you're doing better because if you only needed if you had this much to pay off you would set the right and then the next year if you had this much to pay off you'd set the rate which would be less in the end you still but when I'm missing we're not setting a rate that's lower we have it's at a rate that's lower thank you so much in those losses aren't we hmm aren't we still recognizing the losses this is the last year and maybe that's what it is maybe there's because I know that we yeah yeah we're the 22 losses we don't want to do I thought it was over three years three or five I thought there's a smoothing well that that's I think that's the big hit 26 yeah that's a smoothing yeah it's a smoothing yeah and I know the big losses went over either three or five year period and I think it's coming up to Ian soon it's three or five I can't remember but I remember doing it and and and you know and it was supposed to help and I guess I did but yeah that was a huge we lost up our ass in 2022 yeah we lost it and and and you know yeah it's just it takes years to recoup that loss and then the gains are the same way the gains are actually smooth so we have a big gain it doesn't hit that one year it's smoothed over right and you know it is but the thing is is that you know our assumption is 7% and we're beating that and so it should be you would think it would be smoother than this going from you know 20 30 percent up to 50 percent and what whether it was the assumption next month the next year like 52 percent or something I think or something like that next year is 52 I'm thinking I think I'm right and I'm pretty sure so why is it you know why is it you know cuz we're doing everything we can so does staffing play a role in that well that's why I was asking how much of a blip like well and he may not realize order of how much we're down well you would think you would but and we're net down 70 because they picked up 30 I don't understand which net down 70 what 70 person policemen body belly button no we're 129 sworn short and they're up 30 yeah but there's always been attrition and always right I mean yeah but that's what we we've never been 100 plus short for this period of time no never I hear you I'm just saying I was asking I asked specifically how much of a blip if you go through these ticker items is that a major factor is is the annualized compensation a major factor because in this last round that was when we had all the ARPA money and then we had a bunch of people retire and that was when we had those crazy bumps in salary on top of bargaining that has to have something our payouts jumped or not our payouts but our pay our annualized compensation went from 79 to 94 in two years so like how much of that is playing in he said not that much the rate of return the mortality tables and the investment volatility he said for one two three so well I guess not as much as as we would again at 50.06 percent of everyone's pay so if we had and I'm just using we as an example so we increase our class sizes back up to what they used to be a 45 and we graduate 40 and then 10 leave by the end of the year that's still 50 percent of all of those people's pay that is no longer being contributed by the city to decrease the unfunded liability that money's not going in there at all I think that's the argument against retiree all right retiree hire has played no role in pensioner they don't count as bodies they don't. But if they would have stayed and put into the system that have been money available for for earnings potential instead of them drawing it out correct? Yes if they stayed yeah there'd be more. So I mean you could always. Well that's be nine people. I was gonna say it was very few that's not. Now we're only around 24 short. Yeah. Well how many how many left and went to Fayette County Public Schools? That's what I'm saying. Oh that's where they're all yeah they're all leaving yeah. The people the people that stay in the system stay in the system and the reality is the longer you stay in the system the more likely you are to die. The more likely you are to die the less time you draw. Right. It's better for the system. That's more better. I feel like I'm kicking off today. I tell you at the end of the year there's 139 people in the police department that can retire. So not that there would be anything. Okay so smoothing. Are we smoothing or are we not smoothing? I recognize we all have a specific filter here. I don't see how we can not. The one thing I found interesting when they smoothed at the CRS Ferris level they reset their period to 30. I'm not he suggested not to do that. We could. You I mean you could do it you could conceivably do anything under the sun. Chicago's is a 40-year and he clearly did not sound too keen on that concept. My thing is is every time you like extend it like you know every time we change something we just kick in the can down the road. Right. Like it'll never be. Just like a market. You refinance. Yes you're refinancing. Yeah. That's essentially what you're doing. Down to 20 years I want to refinance to 30. I got to lower my payment. Well and then like so then depending on how often we change stuff that's a lot of to keep track of. Yeah that's why we've got him. I mean he does it in a way on those actual reports. When you make a change of he'll say this much is associated with the valuation. Yeah and I do like where when you do do the layering that you have like an accountability of showing what you did what happened and why you're you know how much you're layering. So I mean I do I do like that just for future down the road but I don't see how we can't not do it. Now do we refinance and go back to 30 instead of 19 years left to pay on it? I'd say can you run it. Yeah but like aren't you still stuck with this chunk that we already have? Well the difference is you instead of having 18 years this chunk you have 30 years. I'm not saying it's the right policy I'm just that would be. Yeah. Can we not run it to be 20, 25, 30 to see what. Well there's no point in running it for 20. That's only two years. We've already got that data basically. Yeah there's no point in that. So the only thing you would run with I would either 25 or 30. Knowing that this is not going to go into effect the earliest would be fiscal year 26 or 27. I have to get my fiscal right. So yeah the earliest this would happen would be 27. So it would be either taking our bulk what we have. Say again. The earliest it could happen to be 27. Fiscal year 27. Thank you. Well I'm not with you. I struggle with fiscal years. I struggle, I have to think before I speak. But yeah because you've got like what 18 years left so you could refinance that whole 18 for 25 years. Not really refinance but shove it over to 25 years or do a 30 year and then everything after that you're doing 20 years for a smoothing. I mean I can ask Todd about that. I know he said he doesn't like it but yeah he's gonna do whatever we tell him to do. I mean it is. I mean and as he said before what you're doing is you're gonna reset the period and you're gonna pay more interest on the front side right and so it'll be yeah it'll be more expensive. Basically he's comparing a 15 year mortgage to a 30. Yes. Or 25. Whatever. But yeah. So my personal opinion would be not to do another 30 because we're just kicking the can down the road. We're not getting anything done so I would. Well it would be the bulk. And then everything after that would be 20. Just like what that statute said too. I am by no means an expert but I can look up stuff on the internet and being above 70% funded does not put us in the minority. We are very well funded. Oh yeah. Now I'm not. I still have mixed emotions on this 30 year but I see the downside if we don't. Our funding ratio is great contrary to what anybody would believe. Having an unfunded liability does not make you a bad person. Just like having a person with a mortgage. Exactly. Well you know we've got other items we need to, we're still discussing and at some point we'll probably have to send all you know whatever this committee decides to the actuary to see costs and so forth. That's what we always do. So you know. Well my concern with this is we're already in June. We're six months from the next legislative session. We need to decide what we're doing, do it now, and find a lobbyist or somebody to carry this. Well and the other thing is you have to have any pension changes before the Public Pension Oversight Board and they have I think four or five interim committee meetings from now to December. So theoretically you have to have something on the agenda if you wanted to get out. I didn't realize we fell under that. We've never done that before. No. I'm just saying. I'm just telling you that's what they said. They want to see all things pension. We can try not to. When did that start? We've always went down with our own lobbyist, which is usually the city's lobbyist, and presented it and they found a sponsor and they you know and it got done. That's just the communication from the chair. There's one from the House, one from the Senate. That all things pension will be presented here or else they won't move legislatively. Now whether they hold their, you know what I mean. I guess we need to know that for sure then. So we know what you're actually. I don't want to say it's 99% of the time they forget about us anyway. This will go far as having a separate pension. Well I mean you know. This doesn't really cost them. So it's yeah. Yeah. I might have a contact to that I can check on that with unless you're going to. No I don't have contact. I might have a contact. I mean I have the LRC guy that I know. That's the only person I know. Well let me see what I can find out because it sounds like he's likely correct on this. The last thing we need is for it to go over there and they're saying we're not hearing it. It didn't go to a public pension. Well the the words were when what was it when did we have our last little piece come through? We had the piece about the if they put the money in and they got hurt. Was it 22? Yeah. Yeah. There were words after that that why did this stuff not come before us? And there were other pension bills too. We weren't the only ones. But they want it they want it all vetted through the people. Would they just sling the PPOB? Now they may give a pass when they go this is just letting it specific. But I think you at least got to get it to them in some form for them to say. Give them the option to say yes we want to hear it no we don't want. Yeah because they have the right to say you're not on my agenda as a chair. You know will they do that or not? Well I'm like Brock you know we weren't able to do it last year. The problem is is almost half of the committee's not here. Two and five not here. I'm reluctant to do anything until Who else is on this committee? Glenda. And Greg Marlin. Greg had a death in the late 80s. Do you want me to reach out to Todd to see what his comments were are in regards to moving what we currently owe to a 25 or 30 and then anything going forward as a smoothing of 20 years? Just to see what his comments are. Yeah yeah go ahead and do it. And also just see if you can get some kind of a ballpark price of what it you know to send all this stuff down there and let them. We got to okay it. Ballpark price of? Yeah. Any proposals and changes? Eight you need to whittle this lovely list down. Whittle or keep it the same? They're doing the layering but what is what is there when you ran all those numbers or smoothing or whatever you want to call it? The only thing that I think they did different when they did the whole like reset they gave CRS employers like three years to phase out the contributions at the beginning. But they're essentially just doing it. That's my understanding. So they're not going to be surprised? I think the concept is known to them. Well it's up to the committee. You want to talk about any of this other stuff? Some of this stuff we can knock out probably. Like the election? I mean the election is. Just removing the details leaving it pretty basic to where we can just manage the voting however we need to manage it. Whether it's online or whatever. Don't have restrictions so. I mean that's the first one which there's nothing we need to send to Todd for that. Nope. And it's not gonna cost anything. So everybody's okay? Yep. Second one, health insurance ad. Do we need to vote on it? We can vote on it. I'm asking if we have to. That's what I'm asking. Well you know you probably would I think you'd probably be the right thing to do. Okay if you want to make the motion. I'll make a motion to remove the details on how a vote will happen. Erin will you second? Second. Okay all right seeing there's no other members. Any other discussions? Seeing no discussion all those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. See now it's off our list. Perfect. Easy. We love things off lists. Okay. Health insurance at retirement opting back in or being able to opt out and able to jump back into the plan. I know Erin looked at this and said that Ben thought, Benji thought that he didn't know what the cost would be involved. He was worried about someone coming into the plan if something was. That was his only concern and I would love to have Glenda here for this conversation. I know. We try. I know. If we don't vote on it it's going to be tabled yes. So that concern is if they come back with a with an illness as opposed to. A long-term illness or something like that. Or no difference of us adding a spouse in a qualifying event or open enrollment that has an issue. Right. So because we can't deny. Do we have the numbers on what it would save for a person per year if they if I want to withdraw and then come back five years from now how much did I save the city? Well you would save the city the allowance but yeah we don't have. 430.74. Yeah. Times however much you're out. I mean I know with a lot of people that are going to schools and things or other jobs in general public sectors. Right. They are offered better insurance. Well our spouses have it and then they get a divorce. That's the big one. That's what prompted this whole thing. Somebody retired and two weeks later they got a divorce. Yeah and now he's SOL on insurance. So okay so we'll table that one. Disabilities. Forever? Probably. Forever ever? It seems like as many conversations and many meetings so we had to discuss it and like it's the same discussion every time. Well we got our results back I believe and never did anything with them if I'm not mistaken. We got results back on all these things just about. I mean I believe it was a big savings to the city if I'm not mistaken from the actuarial. Yeah it would be. Oh gosh yeah. Well not a big saving but it'd be a savings absolutely because when when did we have to go to those meetings down there? 2013? Is that 2013? And that's when Todd kind of surprised us that he said the disabilities weren't costing the you know the pension system or the you know unfunded liability that much. Oh the councilman. Huh? The commissioner or a councilman. Yeah. I thought you meant Todd as in Todd Green. Sorry. No. Well I think even Todd even said it you know it's not as much of a factor but it's still a factor. Has to be. The fewer disabilities. I mean you know I mean right now just for the members is look how many we're getting with like three four five six eight nine years on that are leaving. That's the ones that really really hurt us. I apologize for dragging us off topic but if we had a way for them to leave and take a portion of their pension I bet those people wouldn't go out on disabilities. I bet they'd leave. Lower the disability. I bet they'd leave. This is people wanting to leave here. Absolutely. Sorry. I mean it's not gonna affect me and it's not gonna affect him because we're gone but you guys you know it's up to you you know you got it you got to sell it to the membership. Yeah it doesn't say are the actives gonna agree to it? Yeah. You got to sell it. I had to sell the the 60 to 75. Yeah I mean I think I think the disability and the 20 year kind of go in hand that's the problem. Yeah. Yeah I think I think yeah yeah I'm I think you're probably correct. You're gonna have to give up something to get something. Yep. And I think they well from our side I think they do it in a heartbeat. What do you think about the fire? I think it depends how it's structured. Yeah. You know the devil's in the details. Think no different than the fact that we just are concerned about health insurance at retirement. If we let people draw another five years of insurance stipend of four hundred thirty dollars and seventy four cents a month and they're working at Jim Bob's Crab Shack when they're also getting insurance that and that in no way is reflected in the savings that you see on the disability or the 20-year retirement piece. But it's a cost it's a cost that's going to come out of the out of the coffers of the city. What do we run with actuarial though? Didn't we leave the drawing age the same? I think so. Yeah and the actuarial is at the cost of the pension system. So the cost of but there's not an additional five years in drawing. They still have stake alert. There's an additional five years where they're eligible for insurance if you don't change the insurance. So four hundred thirty dollars and seventy four cents times twelve times five years. Oh but you're not drawing funds you're drawing the benefits not the money. So that's not factored into this cost you can't just say that it's one and a half percent gained and one and a half percent lost or whatever. It's just that's how you got to kind of get to a point where you figure out what a package looks like. Yeah because we did scenarios. Yeah. Age 50 20 years multiplier 2.25. 45 20 years multiplier 2.25. 50 24 years 2.25 multiplier. 45 24 multiplier 2.25. 50 25 with the two and a half multiplier. We did all these scenarios. Right but those scenarios don't factor in the cost of insurance which I'm sure the finance people will care about in terms of dollars in dollars out. But we can't do we can't do scenarios on whether they're going to take insurance or not take insurance. I agree I'm just saying that's that's that's just a cost that has to get factored in. If we think that the cost of payroll stays the same or is neutral because we dropped in disability and we offset it with a 20-year retirement there's other costs that are going to hit. Now maybe that's not solely the purview of the board but when you go to negotiate a raise and they say they can't they can't do anything for you because they're paying an extra 150 cops and 150 firefighters insurance for five years. That's gonna be a big deal. May not be the only deal in the world but it's a factor. Do we have any idea of what percentage of retirees take the insurance? Everybody. Because you can't opt in and out correct? Right. If you have debt you can't get back in. Yeah. You got to stay. Not medical or not dental and vision you can come and go to the police. Medical you can't. We have a handful of militaries that opt out but I'm gonna say probably being nice less than 20. Do we still have a few that didn't that opted out years ago? Yes. I mean roughly 20? By now probably. No more than that. But they would go on the Medicare Advantage plan if we opted them in? Right. Yes. I would have to look to see how many people we don't have medical for. Yeah. Because I know that I've had some of them call me. That's yeah that was a lawsuit years ago. Yeah. When I first started I think. Yep. Yep. All right so. So we ran all the scenarios in November. Then we narrowed it down in January of 2024 to just the age 45 and 20 years of service in the two and a quarter multiplier. So like that was the one that was the last discussion we're talking about. That's where we had that presentation. I mean I don't think we need to. I mean saying we weren't doing all those again we've changed. Yeah. But then they're all talking different scenarios again. Yeah. Yeah. I mean we've got to I mean. I'm just saying that's what this committee came up with. There was a reason for it. Why are we going back and looking at 47 different scenarios again? Yeah I think the problem is that nobody wanted to put their feet to the fire with a disability. And in order to pay for the 20 years you've got to have a disability. You've got to give and take. Well I agree with you. So what happened? That's my question. Here we are talking about it again. We're on June what 16th? June 16th of 2025. I mean the scenario that we sent for disabilities to Todd I'm assuming is the same one in November. It is. Let's see. This is that last meeting. 2025, 30, and 35. So let's see. Does that start in November and this is the. Yeah it's the same. 20, 25, 30, 35. Yeah so 1% to 5% would get 20%. 6% to 10% would get 25%. 11% to 15%. These are all whole body impairment ratings by the way. 30%. 16% to 19% would be 35%. Anything over 20 would be at the 60% and or over that would still add in anything over 20 half that whatever max of 75%. That's for new hires only right? No. That's all for injury. All injuries based on whenever it goes to effect. And do we have anything back from the city as far as any of this stuff is? I don't think it was. It never went past this meeting. It's never gone past a discussion. January 3rd is last time we really discussed it. Just been kicking the can down the road. But some members here thought that this breakdown would hurt somebody that's severely injured and it would not. We're still taking care of anybody that's 20% or more. And some of it like we had people have questions about like what's the injury look like? Like what's a 20% injury look like? That was heart and lung. I remember like that was part of our questions. Yeah. I think there were some other non-starters. That was when we went over to Phoenix and had the table conversation. That was that's exactly that's a non-starters and and we were done with that. So I think it's worth removing from the conversation. Yeah there was some conversation that it would not be beneficial for hiring or anything. That is my that is my recollection and my recommendation. On the whole disability section? I don't I don't get the impression that either division was wanting to bring it forward for a conversation to the mayor. Are you referring to disability or the 20-year? Or either? Or both. I thought that they had to go hand in hand and and that was not. I would think they would have to go hand in hand. I mean you would have to give up something to get something. That's just my thought process. That was just how I took it. It was tricky because police said no. Fire said yes. That was yeah. Who were we referring to as police? Chiefs. Yeah. I think both of them were in that meeting. Yes they were. They were. I don't remember a lot. I know why they're supposed to have that next to them. Yeah I just didn't realize that they're relying on them. Yeah they were both there. You want to the two members you want to table that till the next meeting? I mean I don't know why we are spinning our wheels if the administration is not going to if if the chiefs are are not wanting to explore it. To me I don't think that we have the purview to make that happen for them operationally. I think we have had the conversation. They both sit on this board. We brought it to them as a subcommittee. Had the conversation. It was not moved forward. In my opinion we've done what we needed to do and we continue to to have conversation at this subcommittee level and it's not being picked up and I believe that we have done our due diligence and we've done what we needed to do. That is my opinion. Because I mean it really is the same meeting. Same discussion. Every time. Yep and that's the way it's been for years and years. But I don't think the chiefs alone haven't have a vote in what we do and what we don't do. That's just my opinion. No I do agree with that. My personal opinion. I mean I think. Well Byers said it would be minor help per my notes. What Chief Muther said. He said no. Well Chief Muther said no. And as a board member you got to look at what's best for this pension and so forth. I think it's realistic to see that if everybody that is supposed to stay for 25 years right now could leave at 20, the bottom could drop out of URELS operations. And as the chief to look at that and say that's the reality and I could lose the number of people that I have from here to here. Yeah I can't entertain that right now even for the good of the disability benefit that I could get. I can't entertain that right now. I think that's reasonable and so. We're already in that scenario though. So imagine it that much worse. Well I mean I can't as a manager of the small number of people that I have comparatively speaking and with the responsibility that you all have. I could not look down the road and be like yeah I'll roll the dice on that. Sure no problem. I can't imagine having that conversation. You know if that's the place that they're in. You know I understand the responsibility. I hear what you're saying. Here is the issue right now with those 25 year guys and this has happened in the past. Those people that want to leave apply for a disability. Same as it's always been. It's the way it's always been and we have had years back in the rock. When was it when we had that big massive exodus? Probably late 90s or so. Everybody was going to Louisville and I mean I don't know how many disabilities you know we had. I mean it was a bunch and if you want to go as easy as it is to get a disability from us you're gone. But even just transferring other like I mean that's a we've had a lot to leave and just take other jobs. Right yeah no I'm not saying that but I'm just saying you know logistically I understand kind of where you're coming from but it realistically I don't think I don't think it would it would really affect that much. No because like I said there's at by the end of this year there are 139 people that can leave. You'll have 15 leave like we do every year. That's not I don't know and I'm not Chief Weathers and I have no idea all of the things that went into what he was saying. I'm also not Chief Wells. I don't know what went into his. I'm just saying when we walked out of that group meeting and they were you know not interested in pursuing this not interested in pursuing this. We have gone through as a subcommittee 150 different scenarios. We have done our due diligence. We keep having the same conversation. I don't know why we keep having the same conversation if it's not something that they want to take forward. If the subcommittee wants to take it forward to the mayor great we can take it forward and say this is our recommendation. This is our thoughts. I still think that she's going to turn around and talk to the chiefs and say what are your thoughts. I don't know that they're going to have any different conversation but that's fine. If the subcommittee wants to take something different that's okay but I do think we need to pick a lane and do it because I really do think we need to proceed or drop it. And the problem part of it is like if we go to the mayor you know against Chief Weathers he's really going to listen to Chief Weathers right. Like we have to be united and this subcommittee is not united on this. We're just as decisive as everybody else on this topic. Then that I mean you represent your members so let's just take it to the members and say this is what we want to do. If they say yay then we proceed. If they say no then we don't. Part of it is too is like as a board member I have to look at a bigger picture necessarily than you know the one guy. Ideally you want to present something to them that you thought was correct. Yeah but I also have to look at the I have a fiduciary responsibility to the pension right so if I don't think it's good for the pension like I shouldn't be presenting it to members just because. If my memory serves me correct which usually does. When we changed from the 75 to the sliding scale we voted on it. The proposal went out and the members voted on it. Well we voted on the one on in 2013. Yeah. Everything goes before the board. No no no no no. Who voted on 2013? The membership voted. Yeah. Oh yeah. So any statutory changes goes to the board. The board votes on it and then after that it goes to the membership. They vote on it. Okay. That's how. Usually yeah you're right. That's usually how it happens. So it has to be approved. It has to pass the board first and then the membership has to so you have a united front. So if the membership doesn't then in a sense it fails. What? I don't know if we had this conversation since Greg's been here. I don't think I've only been to one. He's only been to like one of these meetings. I was gonna say he was out of town the last one and then he had a death this time so. Bad timing. Yeah. The one he was here was real quiet like child blaming. Yeah he's trying to take it all in right now. He is. It's new. It's very overwhelming. Okay so with all that discussion are we going to drop the disability and 20-year retirement? I suppose we're tabling it. Somebody's got to make a motion to table it to the next conversation. I second. That was hard. Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Okay smoothing. We've already had that extensive conversation. I will talk to Todd get everything back. Next 13th check. Also in the stuff that we did. Colos. Colo changes. So either 13th check or colo adjustment. I think that goes in with all the other ones. Well to back up what I said earlier, having an unfunded liability does not make you a bad person. If we are willing to assist the city for the problem that your predecessors put us in, not blaming you, but it was people before you and they shoved it down our throat. So if we're willing to do that, I don't see how we can sit here and not do something about the cost of living that is not keeping up with the cost of living for our retirees. Now I would prefer to go to two to five as determined by the board annually. I suggested a 13th check because I thought this might be a little more palatable to the urban county government. With the changes that were happening, I'm not sure that two to five is not the appropriate suggestion again. But again, I'm not even on this committee. But I hear every single day, and we have a retired fire police and widow's meeting tonight, we'll hear it again. By the way, I'm running it. You're running the meeting? Oh, yep. We'll be there all night. Yep. Bring beer. Yeah. Hopefully to the bar. Are we gonna table this? Okay. Okay, I'll make a motion to table. Okay. Okay. Okay. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. How long are we gonna table these? Right, that's what I'm saying. That's my side point. Okay, serves- I believe they deserve a good discussion. I mean- But I think they deserve more than the same discussion five times. Like, I think we need to get new info somehow. Okay. Next is CERS system- whatever that thing is. Thank you. Service purchase. That was Ken Armstrong's deal, wasn't it? Oh yeah, Chief Wells was pushing that one. Is he? Yeah. He wanted the ability to buy service time from CERS. That's gonna take a- I mean, it's not gonna cost- I don't think it's gonna cost us anything, is it? No, he wanted the- we talked about how- I talked with him about how expensive it would be because they have to pay the member's portion, they have to pay the city's portion, and they have to pay any interest. Right. So it would be very expensive and he realizes that he just wants it kind of as an option for people and a selling point. Sounds revenue neutral. Yeah. You got a problem with that? Not initially. The devil's in the details. He just said that. That's because I would say it would be similar to purchasing ghost time. Yeah. Is it only gonna be for- Yeah, but like, it doesn't have the funny math that ghost time does because I still- I would think it would still have to have the funny math. I think it would still have- It'd be more math. I don't- yeah, I think it's not just simple as- Like, you're buying one year, so last year, like, this is what your contribution would be. Yeah, I don't think it would be that simple. No, it's gonna have to- In the rate that you're doing it all. Yeah, no. Is it only hazardous duty or, you know, let non-hazardous duty do it or- I think he just wants people transferring in from other fire departments. I would think hazardous duty to hazardous duty, but that would be mine. From our perspective, as fire, that's probably pretty good because there's only one fire department I know that's not as- you'd have to talk to the police about the fact that they have 40-45% of their membership and not as- I'm all for it because I think the statute says if it's a position that it's hazardous and treated hazardously, then it's allowed. But again, if it costs somebody more because they've only been putting in 4% of their pay, well, then don't buy it. Yeah. Yeah. That's their problem, to figure out how to pay for it. So. So do we want to- How does one go about that? Yeah, so do we have to have Todd look at this? What's the deal? Yeah, I would probably have to talk to Todd about this, but- Yeah, I would probably have to talk to Todd about this, but are we going to state hazardous to hazardous? Yes. Well, I mean- For any CERS years. I mean, we've got to cap it. I mean, there's just- I'm okay with hazardous. With- could I offer just- it has to be sworn police or fire and forget this hazardous duty thing since there's so many police agencies that didn't choose to go- that's not the employees' fault that your employer chose not to be hazardous duty. So any sworn- like, I mean, people from breakfast? I don't care how you- Like UKPD's not- Richmond PD at one time was not hazardous duty. Berea just switched. Harrisburg just switched. To hazardous duty? Yeah. Okay. From the fire side, I can't speak to the police. Yeah. And what's your cap going to be? How many years? I think it should be the same. It should be four. I don't think any one individual should be able to buy more time. And it shouldn't count towards their years of service. Than anybody else. Which should not count towards- Do you think it should be like how we're doing the military now, where it could be prior military service can be in addition to your pension? Is that what you're suggesting? That's what I'm suggesting. Sounds good to me. That way they still have to do their 25, but that gives them- instead of 25, that'll give them 29 years. So they're not losing those years, but we're capping it at four. I don't think it's fair for somebody else to be able to buy 10 years. I can ask him. I've talked to him extensively about it. His biggest thing is he gets people- now this may not solve it. He gets people to go, if I didn't have to restart my clock, I'd definitely- So that definitely means he wants them to count. Yes, that's what I was going to say. Because it doesn't, it's not. Okay, you're right. If he's going to- you can ask him what it would be to 400 both ways. So what? Are we going to max it at four? Cap it at four? Because I don't think it's fair for anybody else. Well, I don't think you want somebody- All your new people aren't going to be getting- You don't want somebody with 20 years coming in and working a year and a half. Right. You know what I mean? And getting a pension. So max purchase time is four years. Yep. Either add at the end- And get a disability, yeah. Add at the end or include- Yeah, in your part. In the 25. Yep. And at what point do they have to purchase it? I don't think he- I think we didn't take that. We'll just do it between year five and ten. Yeah, have to be vested. We can say vested. And the way the CRS system is, you have to have five years in. Yeah, just be consistent with- They can buy up to 20 years. So they just have to be vested in the system. I believe they have a limit. But they also have to show- you have to show a refund of the contribution. So you can't- you can't be like, oh, I'm out. And then you can't get a second pension from the C system. Okay. Well, actually, it's from our system. So if they only have $20,000 in CRS, they can only put $20,000 in. No, they can buy whatever they can afford to buy. But they have to have a letter saying, I no longer am eligible for any kind of pension from CRS. Yes, because I- Well, actually, it's actually from us because it's going to- I fill that form out. Yeah. So yeah, it specifically asks if they've- if I've paid them out. So, any sworn, police, or fire, purchase max four years, add at the end or include in 25 years, purchase time- purchase between five and ten years. Yeah, that's good. Just hypothetical, Ms. Thornoff there. Would there be a look-back period for somebody who's here who qualifies? Would you- would the- or you as an active police rep? Yeah, I mean, I don't- I don't have a problem with that. No. Absent new hires- new hires five to ten years. If you- if you've got a patrolman with ten and a half years on- But what happens if- I'm just asking. They've already bought ghost time, and now they're going to buy a CRS time? Probably need to talk about that. I mean, it's different. Yeah, I would- To me, it's different. To me, it's different. It doesn't have to be anybody under the 2013. Yeah. So, do we go back to the prior to 2013? Is that what- No, because they're all eligible to leave. Yeah. Yeah, because then they would surely leave. Yeah, if you add it to their 20, or include it in your 20, and they bought four years- I think you can just put some- You can just put some verbiage in there saying, like, max of bought time can be four years, and that kind of gets you both that and ghost time combined. Does that make sense? Dave, do you have an opinion on any of this? Yeah, I'll start looking at it. That sounds so exciting. Yeah, just put something in there saying, like, you can only buy a max of four times, or four years. Okay, I got that. One or the other, kind of thing? Yeah, one or the other. If military is not treated that way. No, that's different. I mean, we can do it a bunch of different ways. All right, do we have a motion? Motion to approve how we've just discussed it. Second. Second. With significant input from Dave. Yes. Do we have to write numbers for that? No. Well, this is just to go to Todd. Yeah, for Todd to look at it. Just for her to talk to Todd. Just out of curiosity, isn't this going to cost money to have Todd write all these numbers? I'm going to talk to Todd to see- Get an estimate or something? That was what I was leading up to. Usually, what we have to do is get a board request for a certain amount of money. But the thing is that these things that we've tabled, are they going to come back before we submit this stuff? Yeah, I would think so. I would like to do it as a total. I mean, part of it is, the smoothing has to be done soon. Disability, 20th check, or 20-year and 13th check are not going to be quick because we've proved that because we've been talking about it for at least a year and a half. We have numbers on 13th check. We have numbers on disability and 20-year term. Yes. He's already looked at all three of those. Yes. Now, they have a little- They'll wiggle a little bit, but not significantly, I wouldn't think. Like I said, this committee narrowed it down, and we got the last set of numbers in January. So, we have those at least as a base to look at maybe. Because when I send this to Todd, he's going to give me an actuarial cost for everything. I can't send him one group and then add another stuff to him. So, I can't do that. I have to send it all at once. We don't need to redo the stuff that we've already done. Well, but it all affects everything, but- Well, yeah, like, if we bring back disabilities and 20-year retirement, he's going to have to re-run those, and there'll be a cost. Because it's not necessarily- It's like your chart. The two things don't necessarily add, but they all impact. Yes. So, I mean, I can talk to Todd about some of this stuff, but I can't get a cost until you tell me that some of this stuff is not going to happen for this coming legislative session. Legislative session. So, any of these table things, I need to know if we're going to look at them again in a month, or they're off until next year. That's what I need to know. Let alone, we got one more dot, serves refund of account contributions. How much are you going to even count? I don't know. I believe Erin Surratt answered that question. They refund it if you want it, and there's no dormancy fees. Yeah, I didn't think, I thought we're clear on that. Okay, well, she brought it up. I didn't bring a ticket. It was on, it's the last little bullet point. We didn't have a meeting here about that. Yeah, we did talk about that. Greg was actually involved in that meeting. He was charged dormancy. There was something that happened, but that was a long time ago, and he feels like it's changed since then. So, I can just- A mark that it's off, settled. Okay. Mark it off. Jail employees come in. What are we marking off? He was a state police. I'm not sure which one. Yes, he was. Was outside of the system, and then came here, and- And I think the other problem is, is that we have some that are in police that there was no lapse between- There was no break in service. Yes, there was no break in service. Yeah, they were dispatchers. But he could withdraw his money out of the system. That's the problem. So, he wasn't putting money in, unless they were charging him a fee for not contributing, making a contribution. He wasn't charging me a fee, so. It sounds like it was very inconsistently applied. Yeah, and all my money's still there from that. And if there's no break in service, that you can't take it out. Yeah. And he had a letter paying in. For the same employer? Yes. Yeah. Yes. Yeah, okay. Like, we had somebody go from 911 to police. There was no break in service. She couldn't get her money out, because she's still employed with us. They were trying to fix that. That's not us. So, we're good with it. That's how it is right now. If you go to jail here, you can't get your money out of CERS. You have to have... And that's their rules. Well, you can have a plan agreement between the two plans, but it would involve CRS and LFUCG, Basic Fire, writing a plan agreement for the same employer. It's possible. I'm not saying it's something you do. Yeah, but it's not extension board related. It's, I mean, I don't feel like... Yeah. Motion to adjourn, so Matt can take us and start it. All right. We got anything else? Sorry. Could we put these tabled items to long-term items? Yes. Can we make a motion that way? Make a motion to move disability, 20-year retirement and 13th check or COLAs to long-term items. Okay. Second. And then the only item we can refer back to would be the health insurance, which is for Glenda. Yes, ma'am. Okay, so we're moving these to long-term. Historically, this is the second time 13th check has been moved to long-term. Well, so that's just saying. And the 20-year and the disability. Oh, that's been on there for the last four or five years. Can we even consider this the ERS if the state doesn't want to do that? No, this is totally different. Unless there's not a separation. Oh, because it'd be a different employer. That's different. That's a different. That's purchasing time in CSRS. This is actually refunding your contributions that you paid into CSRS. But if I can't get my refund? You should've already got your refund if you're trying to buy CSRS time. The only way you can't get it currently is if you are an employer to employer without a bonafide separation with absent a plan agreement letter. Which that's up to the LFECG and the government to see if they want to do a plan agreement letter to allow that transfer to occur only if they have a bonafide separation. Yeah, that's the same employer. For the same employer. Yeah, so it's the same employer. All right, so the only one we've got left over is Glenda. Yep. Can you talk to her, please? Uh, when do you want to meet again? As far as I'm concerned, ASAP. Can we just do it after the next pension meeting in the council room? We want to wait that long? That's July. July 9th. That's not that... Okay, that's three weeks away. Three weeks, yeah. And you've got July 4th in between, like, holidays. Let it be noted that July 9th, there's a re-hearing as well. No. Do what? No, I just answered his question. What was his answer? He wanted to play hooky. I said I cannot play hooky. Yes, no hooky. So, what do we want to do? I mean... I don't have a problem with schedule, so it's up to them. And, you know, I'd like to get, hopefully, have all five members here. I know that Glenda is out that day because she won't be at the board meeting. She mentioned that at the board meeting last week, so she won't be here for that. Okay. We need to talk to Glenda. So, if we can get Glenda's schedule and then we can get a meeting scheduled that way. Susan, can you get on her schedule? I will do my best. Okay. Sooner is better, is that what we're saying? Are you going to talk to, if we have to present something before this committee? I will hopefully have an answer for you by the end of the week on public pension oversight system. Okay, perfect. All right. Motion to adjourn? There's six more meetings. Over.