Are y'all ready to start? Okay, we'll call a meeting to order. We have one item on the agenda, which is the COLA, which seemed to be the tickling point for all our other legislative thing. Something I, I laid it, today is not a good day for me but regardless, I was awake most of the night, so thinking. Our, our budget right now is about 90 million dollars a year. That's what our, we pay out. And over the last 20 years, the cost of living has averaged about 3%. If you take 3% of that 90 million, we're looking at about 2.8 million dollars, of which, the way our COLA system is working now, we're paying at least a third of that, maybe a little more. So in reality, we're only looking at about a million and a half dollars a year. We just made almost 34 million dollars in the last month. Social Security is going to go up, and it's supposed to be going broke here in what, the next 10 years, and they're giving them a 4%. So I don't know what the stickler is, you know. Our system has, and as Chad put out, when I went on in 1992, we had about 140 million dollars. Now we're well over a billion, and we're worrying about a million and a half, million point eight. So, you know, we're not talking, in my opinion, we're not talking about that much money. So I'll open it up to the committee. I think that's why Social Security is going broke. No money was put into it. And they have the, the government has the option of printing money, so we don't have that option. But the problem, I, like, I'm okay with, you know, the two million dollars the first year, but that second year you're adding another two million dollars to it. It's not just a one-time cost, right? It's compounded, so every year it's two million dollars. It's compounded by three percent, so three percent of a million and a half dollars is not doubling it. But you're adding another, you can pay out another two million dollars the next year for the COLAs. Right. Yeah, so if you're paying two million dollars the first year, you're paying two million dollars plus three percent the second year, so those two add up together. Okay. So on and so forth. In 1981, this pension system, I don't know, 40 million dollars. We gave a 5% COLA from, from 1981 up until I got on the board and we tied it to the CPI. And we still grew. And that's when we didn't have the money coming in that we have today. Of course, we only had two equity managers and a fixed income manager, and we were only making, at best, probably four percent. And we did it. And today we are growing leaps and bounds. We are the, you know, you guys right now, you active, are putting in more money than any pension system I can find. Twelve percent. You know, all, you know, to me, you know, up until 2013, we never had a problem with it. And then in 2013, the former mayor is screaming that we're going to go broke. We were 78% funded in 2013, and today, the last action, we're, what are we, 72%. I don't get it. We're, you know, you're paying all this money. It's basically, it should be a Cadillac program or pension. And yet, we're going, you know, the retirees are going behind and behind and behind. You know, you know, the suggestion of one to five percent tied to the COLA, I think it's very reasonable. Very reasonable. I was just pointing out that, you know, it's not just two million dollars. Like, it's two million dollars adding every year on top of each other. So, that's all I was pointing out. Like, I'm not saying one way or the other. I understand it, but the pension, our payroll is going to go up. You guys are going out on a whole lot better salary than what us old farts do. So, it's, you know, it's going to, obviously going to go up. But I'm hoping to goodness, you know, now that we're over a billion one hundred thirty five million dollars, as long as this board does its job, which it is doing an excellent job, and you know it. I mean, you know, we're, you know, our minimum we've set up is, what, seven percent, and we're making way better than that. So, the pension is growing. Growing, you know, rapidly. I mean, thirty five million dollars in one month or thirty four million dollars in one month. It's not a bad month. The dollar value went up, but like you said, the funded liability went down. So, if we went from seventy eight down to seventy two, paying out additional COLAs, it seems like it could be detrimental. I'm not opposed to COLAs. I think they're necessary, as long as it doesn't make the fund insolvent. If we're going backward already, adding more COLAs could be dangerous. We went backward because of assumptions. I mean, let's be honest. It's not, here's the deal, we could get this experience study and change our rate of return by a tenth of a percent, change our mortality rate by a year, and this would affect this thing by millions and millions of dollars, and percentage basis would probably be two or three percent to the good or the bad or worse, no matter however you moved it, right? And that's what essentially happened. We looked like, you know, we had the seventy eight percent funded. We did the experience study. We assumed those, you know, different things. I think we dialed the rate of return back, and that's a big one, right? I mean, as it should be, but I also think it's conservative, and that's not a bad thing either, especially when we're looking at trying to become a hundred percent of that unfunded liability. So I am sympathetic to it. I know I give Tommy more grief than anybody in this room probably, but like the COLA is something everybody benefits from. I think we can all agree with that. Everybody's trying to get to the same spot, whether you're still wearing a uniform, or you're retired, or whatever. We're all in that same boat, and we're all benefiting from it. It's expensive. We know that. I think our biggest hurdle is that there's rules to this thing that's the hundred percent funded, and we all know that that is, for lack of a better term, kind of a crock, right? Like, it doesn't matter. Like, it does matter, but it doesn't matter, and I don't think it has to be a hundred percent funded, but that was the rule set in 2013, and until we agree that we've got a number that we're shooting for, whatever that is, then I think we can probably absorb some more of that COLA talk, right? Like, I think that's where we are, and I don't know that we can have a COLA talk until there's a talk about what that looks like, you know, what the end goal is, because the rule is now, what is it, 83% funded until you get the COLA, you know? No, no, no. I know, I know. I was getting ready to give you some credit, Rock. Sit tight. It's got to become a hundred and ten percent funded, or a hundred and twenty percent funded before it reverts back, and I get that, but like, that's the rule on paper, is that right? Like, isn't that what we said on paper? On paper, it says eighty-five percent funded after the COLA is given, and it won't get there until you're a hundred and three percent. At a hundred percent, the city's contribution drops. Correct. So it is fiscally impossible to get there. I'm tracking it. And so, I think we all know that by now. My point is, until we change that verbiage, and then we get it right, and we understand that there's something you have an appetite for, that we're like, hey, you know, we can be at eighty-five percent funded normally, or eighty percent funded normally, or whatever that is, and we're okay to give this COLA, whatever. I mean, and I'm just throwing out numbers. I don't, I'm hoping you have a solution. I've been hearing the problem, and I get it, but I don't have a solution. But the first, the first step of that solution is to change the rules at which we're playing time. Yeah. I think you agree with that. You know, the, you know, the city enacted the problem. This board had nothing to do with it. We were never asked. We were never done anything. I have, I'm a Fayette County. I was born here. I wanted, you know, to help the city as much as I can. And if we need to move the goalposts, do away with the goalposts, I have no problems with that as long as we take care of our retirees. And, you know, just look what, in the last two months, we've had what, six, six, was there six deaths? You know, we've got an older, you know, a lot of old people in our pension system that when they retire, you know, I mean, if, you know, the, look at the widows, the annuity we got today. How the hell you gonna live on that amount? I'm here for it. I'm here for goals. I am. Like, you know, I think, and I don't know that anybody disagrees, but that's here. I'm, again, it's something that everybody benefits from, literally. I mean, the goal is to get to retirement and hopefully have a fruitful retirement. I think we're good with that. The question is, how do you get it? I mean, do you have an answer for that? Other than just say, yep, let's do it, and then, you know, we roll the dice. I mean, we obviously send this to an actuary, but what is the solution? That's what my question would be. I think it's twofold, and that is, we've got to do something to move the goalposts. I mean, the city this year is putting in, what, 50, 52 percent? That's ridiculous. I mean, and there's nobody that's fought the city more than I have, but that is ridiculous. But they put themselves in that position, not seeing down the road. You know, at the time, they thought, you know, it was the greatest thing, you know, that there ever was, and now look what has come back and bit them. I have no problem with helping them. I think 52 percent is ridiculous. I really do, but I'm a retiree, and I represent, you know, over 1,400 people, police, fire, and widows, and I'm sitting here looking at these, you know, people, and, you know, and they're just going further and further and further behind, you know, when you're, you know, when you got a maximum of two percent for up to $40,000, and the CPI right now is, what, 3.8 or whatever it is, they're just going behind, behind, behind, and, you know, we're, you know, you got to understand, part of that COLA is going to happen regardless. We got the two, the one and a half, and the one. If the average is three, you know, it's not that much more money. Again, I'm here for the COLAs. I don't disagree. We all understand. I think the question is, how do we get to it? It's never a problem of identifying the issue. It's a problem of figuring out the solution. Ready for other input? If our funded ratio is going down, is it prudent to increase costs for it, across the board, for across the board COLA, or would it be more prudent to focus on those who need it most? What I mean is, raising the minimum annuity that we're willing to give, because there's already a provision in KRS for us to increase it. Okay. Those are the people that are going to need it the most, and I'm not, I'm not a retiree. I'm not close. I'm only 35. I've got a long time to work here, but when I hear you talk about retirees, I'm not really sure who you're talking about, because there's more than one kind of retiree. There's the guy who has been here 20 years, and he's 43, and he's gonna go work for another career down at DOCJT, or another fire department, or wherever he's gonna go, and make a full salary, on top of a pension, and get a thirty or forty thousand dollar a year raise. And on the other hand, there's the widow who, her husband was a firefighter in 1989, and they're getting peanuts then, and even less now. Seems like she's the one that deserves the increase more than the other. Here's the argument I have for that. You're putting in twelve percent, correct? You're putting in twelve percent. Chief Wills is putting in twelve percent, and his twelve percent is a hell of a lot more than what your twelve percent is. You know, you have to be fair. I mean, yes, there are, you know, what's it, what's the average pension now? Fifty thousand? Over fifty. Yeah, if they're retiring now, it averages over fifty. I don't think I want to be fair. Fair would be not having a minimum disbursement. I want to help those at the bottom end up. So, just for some numbers, because I was a little bit prepared for that, and we have fourteen retirees under the eighteen hundred dollars a month. We have fourteen of those. Under eighteen hundred. Under eighteen hundred, we have fourteen retirees. Eleven are widows, and then three of those are quadros, which don't count, okay? Retirees that are earning less than forty thousand or less, we have two hundred seventy that are under that forty thousand a year threshold, which is who I'm thinking you're looking to help. Probably. Yeah, or move. That's just my perspective. Yeah, but just to give you some numbers. Those are the people that it's going to matter for, and those, yes, the fourteen or so that you're talking about. Yeah, so really, just eleven. Eleven or what? Eleven. Those are people that the board could positively influence immediately, right? We have discretion every two years to raise it ten percent or more to the current poverty level for a two-person household, which is currently at sixteen thousand dollars a month, or sixteen hundred dollars a month. Why don't we go ahead and do that, and then talk about everything else? Because if we're going backwards in the funding ratio, regardless of what's going to be a hundred percent or not, why are we talking about increasing these costs so much that we don't necessarily know what it's going to mean? You know, not everybody, you know, unfortunately, in fact, there are very few that were smart enough to plan ahead. And you don't know how many people there are that this is all they have, is their pension, which I regret. I mean, you know, they should have thought ahead like a lot of us, you know, that there is something else maybe to fall back on. But, you know, fair is fair, in my opinion. There is no, you know, okay, yeah, the people under forty thousand deserve it, yeah. But, you know, they didn't put in the money that the guy up here put in money. They put in a hell of a lot more. So I'm understanding you. You're wanting to get rid of the tiered COLA system and go to a straight COLA. Yeah, you know, what my recommendation is, is go, hell, we can go either zero to five or one to five and tie it to whatever the CPI. Because I was the one that went and changed it to the CPI. Because up until I got on the board, it was a straight five percent every time. And we didn't have the money that we have today. And that went on from the early 80s up until, I believe we got, I got it changed in like 96. And let me tell you, you would have thought I was overthrowing the American government. I caught fourteen times the hell over it. But honestly, you know, when you, you know, they were just, it was an automatic stamp five percent every year. Five percent every year. And I'm going, wait a minute, how do you justify a five percent, you know, cost of living when the CPI is three percent? And if somebody came in and sued us, which they could, how do you justify that? You can't justify it. But if you tie it to the CPI, then you have a number you can fall back on. And that's what the board ended up doing, agreeing with me. And don't let me, you know, and I went out and faced those retirees. I went to them. And it was not a pleasant time at that particular moment. But I ended up somewhat winning them over to where, after I retired, I was ended up, you know, I was the president of the retiree organization for like ten years. And then I conned another person into taking it over, which is sitting back there. So, you know, it, you know, the, you know, and I'm trying to say exactly right. The reason that we're going backwards is we have changed a lot of parameters. And we're talking about changing another one? Well, so let me say that. So it all kind of comes back to the experience study. And I think if we're talking prudency, I would say the most prudent thing we've done, at least the late breaking, is that we got the experience study moved a year ahead of time, which I talked to Chief Swiderski and he said that was from y'all's last meeting. Yeah, I think that's a really good plan if you're going to make these serious changes. So, personally, just think that by looking at that, we can have a better understanding if that mortality table changes. Even the last one we did was kind of that post-COVID. It was a weird time. They didn't have good data, right? But I think now we can probably take a better look at that. And, of course, that, if you're familiar, I don't know if you were here for that or whatever, but essentially you're going to see the mortality where they think we should be on that. And it's up to us to decide. But they'll give you that mortality table. They'll give you the rate of return. Help me out here. I'm missing the other one. I'm sorry. Salary was in there. Yeah, well, salaries are, yeah, but they're kind of giving us the outside variables that we can't assess, really, because we're looking at such a small pool of people. But I feel like by looking at that, we can have a better idea. I think my question, and you're kind of coming to a head here, is that what is it that you would prefer? And if it's the 1 to 5 percent, okay, 1 to 5 percent on that tied to the CPI. So it would be voted on or automatic or whatever, but some derivative that it would happen. The CPI is at 5. You could elect, the board, I guess, could decide that they could do the COLA up to 5 percent for that year. Okay. I think just trying to understand what it is, the end goal. I think that's where I was going a second ago with this, where that is the end goal. I think actuarially, we probably are, we are going back, right, like because of that reason. Without diving into it with Ms. Hensley, are we kind of, I don't know, are we falling back actually, like in real terms? I don't know, and that's my question. If you, because here's the deal, we've sat here, you sat, we're at this very table, and we talked to Kavmac over many things and scratched our head at how we were coming up with these numbers. And he's like, oh yeah, you're right on track, you're right on track, but we're nowhere near where we should be according to what the 2013 actuary said. And we all, we do agree with that. So what I'm saying is, I think there's a lot of agreeance here, and then I think there's the variables at play that change your percentage funded, right? It's all smoke and mirrors. It's kind of smoke and mirrors in terms of how that goes. My point is, is on the number, on the face, are we really losing ground? Are we, and that's, I don't, I'm trying to ask, that's what I want to ask, you know, are we, how financially does that look? Not just actuarially, but how does it look? And how do we get that number? You know, you're arguing, you know, that the people, you know, that are making sixty, seventy thousand on their pension right now, if you keep going back, losing one, two percent every year for the rest of their life, which we're looking at, I'm hoping that I'm going to make it another 15, 20 years, I'm going to get further and further and further behind, okay? I don't want it to be a raise. Originally, that's kind of what it was, that straight five percent was a raise, and that's how it was argued to me, and I'm going, wait a minute, when you retire, you know, you don't get raises. Your dollar should be the same spending value when you retire to the day you die. That's all I'm asking. The same, you know, whenever you, whatever you decide you do, you know, whether you retire at 20 years or you're an idiot like me and stay for 35 plus, you know, that, I just want my dollar to stay the same, and it's not. Neither is mine. Huh? Neither is mine. Right. Yeah, nobody's arguing that we don't want COLA, just like Trey said, but like, my question is, and my concern is, how do we ensure that, like, we're at the same level of funding a hundred years from now giving this COLA? That's my concern. Yeah. Do we have the parameters from the 2013 study? Like which parameters, I'm sorry? All of them. Everything that they based the numbers on. We weren't given, we weren't privileged to it. You're funny. We were not privileged. And there's a chalkboard. In 2013, we had an actuarial value of the fund of five hundred and thirty three million dollars, and we had an unfunded liability of two hundred and four million dollars. Our assumed rate of return at the time was seven and a half percent. This is after the restructure. The contribution rate for the city was thirty six and a half percent. Our funded ratio was sixty six percent. Since then, we have dropped our assumed rate of return to seven percent. Our contribution rate has gone up to fifty one and a half, we'll say, and rising. Our funded ratio is now just around seventy two percent. We're a little over 1.1 billion dollars, and our unfunded liability is three hundred and eighty five million dollars. So we have gone, as far as our unfunded liability, in a negative direction. Now, it does not represent the same percentage of unfunded to asset value, which is good, but our contribution percentage does continue to go up. When we looked at a scenario of giving a half a percent on what we have existing, so our forty thousand, forty to seventy five, and seventy five at the, what, one, on the one, one and a half, and two that exist today, we looked at that in 2023. It increased our unfunded liability sixty six million dollars for a half a percent, in 23, before all of the contract increases went in, before the mortality table changes, before all of that. So I don't know what that would be today. I do think that the experience study change will help us calculate that, but just for our mental picture of what up to five could look like, a half a percent changed to sixty six million dollars. To Trey's point, working within the box that we are working within, I don't know how you make both of those things true. I don't know how you continue to float the boat down the river that you're trying to reach a destination and blow holes in it by continuing to outpour additional resources. You can't fill it with water at the same time that you're trying to offload the liability. I don't know how you make both of those things true at the same time. Something has to get there. Based on the 2013 numbers, do we know where we should, based on that study, where should we be at today compared to where we are? I had that at one point. It's probably in the spider somewhere. It's not pleasant. It's not pleasant. When I went back and looked at their presentation of where we thought we would be, the contribution rate is significantly different. The funded, we were like on the downhill slide and we're not anywhere close. And it's the same actuaries, it's the same team, it's the same everything. But we were judicious enough to sit here and ask them, and literally we're all looking at each other like, how does this happen? And he was like, oh no, it's fine, everything's fine. He keeps saying like, oh, next year it's gonna go down, or two years from now it's gonna go down, and it never does. I feel like he's a great salesman because we just keep on. I probably shouldn't be saying this. Go ahead. How much better would we be if we had gotten the correct amount of money in 2011? I'm not aware that the fund has been harmed. We will see very shortly, I think. So can you, can anybody help explain to me if a, if a 1% total raise, total call loan is, let's say it's $960,000 a year, right? So 1% of the annual, we're paying out nine hundred, I'm sorry, ninety six million a year for the pension, right? Eight million a month. Sound good? Well, that's round that up. That's fine, that's close enough. So 1% would be $960,000. Right. So what, I don't understand how that makes, would make the unfunded liability $132,000,000. I don't know if we're getting $132,000,000. Well, because half a percent was $66,000. Where's $132,000,000 in two years? This, this is 1%. Oh, okay. Adding the two together. I don't know, that was their 2023 numbers. I just went back and pulled what they sent us in 2023. So, taking into account whatever has happened since then, which I think we will figure out from their new experience study, if that has moved the needle significantly. I mean, I think that's a decent assumption, but are we good with having a $500,000,000 unfunded liability now? All I'm asking is how does, how does a half percent or 1% equate to a $66,000,000 unfunded liability? Increase. How does it equate? I don't know, it's however they calculated it. I'm just actually worried about it. It's not a one-year number. It's a forever number. It's compound interest working against you. It's a magic math. Half a percent every year compounds on itself. So, was the $66,000,000 for the half percent, that was for, through the 2042, that's been supposed to be at 100%? Or that's for a year, or five years, ten years? I'd say it's probably through the end date. I would say, yeah. Probably through the final date. Because it's going to impact the amount due by 2042. Yeah, I would assume that they calculated it through the planned Sunday date. I had to put it in order because I was flipping so much last time. I've got it. I've got it right here. Okay. I don't know that, I think it would probably be in the... The cost of living. Yeah. This one was the one percent increase. Does it say if it's through? It doesn't say, but I would imagine that's what it would be. Because that's the time period we're talking about. To be 100% funded, that's what it would... After that, it's not going to matter. After that, there would be no unfunded liability. In a perfect world, right? We had them run like... Several scenarios. Ten scenarios at that point in time. A lot. A whole lot. The cheapest being 12 million, 12 and a half million dollars. How soon will we be able to get the experience study done? He's got to do the actuary first. And then he would run the experience study. So, you're going to be lucky. So, it would be next year. You're going to be lucky if we get it December of this year. Oh, we could. I mean, it's a stretch. It's being optimistic. It's being a stretch, but yeah. He could work on them. I mean, it depends on how busy he is and stuff. I have not asked him. He was not aware that... We got the experience study early, but there was no confirmation because we had to have board approval. But the actuary is the first and foremost thing that he has to complete first. How many total pensioners do we have? 1560. Oh, I was under now. I think 1560. 160, you don't represent. Not that I was looking at that yesterday, but yeah. The 160, I didn't vote for him. Or the 10, stuck him back on there again. And just for reference, prior to 2013, we used the April CPI. It's usually... They don't have the May because we said it in June. It's May. They didn't have the May done until after our meeting. So, we always... You ended up using the April. We always use the April CPI. And I do have those numbers if anybody wants them from 2013 to 2026 and what the average was. Yeah, what's the average? 2.71. So that's less than my 3%. 3.8. There were some big ones. There were some negative ones. Anecdotally, I've lost buying power every year except for one which is the 2013. So, I just mirrored what we did prior to the 2013 just to kind of give an idea of what we would be looking at. Because you can't just pick it. You have to pick one specific month. So, what we used prior was April and that's what I used. Well, it was the only time, the only last number that we had. Well, you have to be consistent and so yeah. For us to vote it for in June and have it effective July, the only time you got was April. Because they run like a month or better behind. I know when we ran these numbers maybe three years ago we tied them to a decrease in disability percentages. Is that out the door or where did any of that ever land? That was one scenario we looked at. We can only talk about COLAs in this meeting. Just so that we don't get something else going. Is the idea of a 13th check considered a COLA discussion? Yes. Definitely. To your answer, I think that there was a distaste for time. We can't talk about disabilities. We looked at the numbers and it was so few people don't get me wrong, we have a sour taste for certain disabilities but that's what we were focusing on and those are very few in Florida. It ended up not affecting numbers significantly enough to change it. Let's get back on track. You brought up the 13th check. After thinking about that for quite some time, I'm completely opposed to it and the reason being is this. That would be about an 8% raise roughly. That sound right? You could only do it probably every 3-5 years, something like that. The problem is your pension is going to be flat. There's nothing built in where it goes up. Other than the COLA that exists right now. Are you going to add the 13th check onto this? Absolutely. I'm not a member of the committee nor am I a member of the board but that's where my head was that you would add the 13th check. That would be fine as long as that happens. I thought that was the discussion. We never really got into it. That was the assumption. Effectively using the 13th check every third year to make up for a loss of buying power based on CPI. I could probably live with that as long as it's in there but we never really ever We've thrown at ideas but have we ever dialed down the details? No. That would have been my assumption. It costs one month of payroll. That you would keep the COLA's. It doesn't compound. The normal COLA's in place would continue to compound but the 13th check and you would issue the 13th check based on whatever guardrails were set. If you look at the average CPI potentially over 3 years, if it misses by 6% you issue a check. If the CPI that's built in the COLA's meet the CPI then you don't have to issue a check. It's however you would do it but that's the idea is that the 13th check is issued to make up for your loss of buying power over the previous 3 years. The other question that I have about that is would that be counted as part of the retirees payment? pension or would that be taxed differently? It would just be- I assume that would be taxed the same as your pension checks are. I talked to my CPA and he wasn't so sure about that. I had a question too about similar in that lineage because now that a lot of guys are leaving and they might have a social security benefit as well, nominal as it probably is, it can tinker with your social security because you're showing an influx of money in that particular area. I actually kind of like the 13 check idea. I'm not just playing a little devil's advocate here because I think there's something to that. They could hurt the people that are definitely $100,000. But then again, anyone that's over $100,000 probably already gets a penalty for IRMA. There's definitely some caveats that would need to be investigated in that. There needs to be quite a bit of checking. Tax repercussions and social security repercussions and a lot of other things. I view the 13th check as a way that the pension can make up the loss of buying power for our retirees at a lower cost to the pension and going forward because it doesn't compound. How would that affect the unfunded liability? We would have to do the study to see what that would do. I think we would make the assumption that we would issue one every three years. It would increase it, but not nearly as much as a cold one. I think that came about during the discussion of the results. Well, what does the committee want to do? We've been spinning our wheels over and over and over and over. I don't know how many hours we have put into this. I'd like to get something so we can get all of it sent to the actuary and all that because that's going to have to happen. Until we get it finalized, I can't ask for money from the board to send it to the actuary because we don't know. Nothing's finalized. So, what are you proposing? Somebody make a motion as to what we want to do. I'm asking you what do you want to do? I want to go to the one to five. That's what we were told we could do and we voted to increase all our contribution rate and we have always contributed. And for 27, or well, from 73 up until 2003, the city only put in their minimum. And the only reason that changed is due to a lawsuit by a number of us, a couple of us right here, that was involved in that. We'd be in a hell of a lot worse shape than we are now. And when we were not making hardly any money at all, we were doing fives and we were still growing. And I can't see where $1.8 million a year increase, yes, it's going to compound. But payroll, I mean, people retiring is going to compound. I mean, to me, $1.8 million, now that we're well over $1 million, is not that much money. And I just want to take care of the retirees. Because every one of you in here are going to be a retiree one day. And if you get hurt or whatever and you can't have a second job or whatever, and you weren't smart enough to plan ahead, then you're going to be hurt. And there's a bunch of them out there that are hurt. And I mean a bunch. That's what I'm, that I'm looking for. So if you, if we call that like the top, what would be the lower end? There isn't one. So it's one to five or nothing? In my opinion, for me, yeah. And tied to the CPI. And like, you know, 2.8, what was it, 2.8 for the last 10 years or whatever? 2.7, 1. 2.1, you know. That's the average though, so. That's the average. So that's even less than what I calculated. You've got some eights, you've got some fours, threes. There's one year you've got to give money back. There's one, yeah, one year you've got to give us money back. Sending my bill in the mail. Invoice. So it's actually less than what I calculated. I calculated it on three. Well, you calculated on a 1% increase, right? No. I calculated it for everyone to get a, you know, the average of 3%. And it turned out for the last 10 years, it's 2.7. So it would be less. I think what he was saying was the difference between what they're receiving now and what he's calculating. And you've got to understand that what we're getting now is going to be at least a 3%. Now it's going to be at least a third and probably more of that, you know, 3% when you look at it. So we're only going to be out, you know, another additional million, million and a half dollars per year. And yes, it'll compound, but you're only looking at compounding it at 3% on average or less. Especially, you know, we've got, you know, and let's face it, this board has done a super job for investing. We have, you know, we have met that 7% goal every year except for, what, one in the last 10, is that right? I don't know. I don't have those numbers. You know? And exceeded it. So we're doing our job. As long as the market stays up. Well, the market has always gone up. Yes, you have flukes. You have, you know, it's going to happen. But, you know, we lost what in, what was a bad year? 2008. 2008 we lost 22%. But look what we've made since then. I know. We have made all that back up and a whole lot more. And nobody watches, you know, our finance managers better than I do. Poor old John gets tired of me calling him. You know? And we are getting rid of, you know, we got rid of some people that are unperforming, which has hurt us a little. But we're still way above the 7%. And most years, I mean, we've been doubling that, you know, or more. Gosh, what else? You know? And I apologize because I said 78%. That was in 2011 when we were 78% funded. It's later than that, too. It's been in my time. It's been that time. Randy, you can say it. You represent the retirees. You're the president. You want to say something. It's nice to be recognized because he's not on the board. Yeah, I am recognizing him. Just like I do Jeremy and Phil. Thank you all. So for those of you that do not know me, my name is Randy Kaplan. I'm a retired Lexington police officer with a full-time in-service pension. I always put that caveat in. Get that going in a minute. So I'm the president of the RFPW, which is Retired Fire Police and Widows of Lexington. We do one thing, and I'm going to read the purpose of our organization if you don't mind. This is from the Articles of Incorporation for the RFPW. Hold on, that's my wife quacking. Well, you'll catch it for now. Yep. The purpose of the corporation shall be to enhance and protect the rights and benefits of retired firemen, police, spouses, and or dependent children. That's it. That's what we do. We don't get into FOP battles. FOP does a myriad of stuff that is all awesome. We do one thing, and that's protect retirees and the widows. That's it. I got involved in this organization about five years ago. I'm in my second term as president. We meet at the FOP Hall every month, third Monday of every month. This is an attendance list of 25 people. These people are old, y'all. They're either were police or fire or they're spouses or widows of those people. I'm in the business world. I've been since I retired. I went park it for 14 years. I'm now one of the owners of Lee's Famous Recipe Chicken in Lexington, Richmond, and Corbin. We have bills to pay. We have bottom line. It's about math for all of us. I see both sides of it. I see every side of it because I was in the government world for half of my adult life. Now I'm in the business world, so I see that part of it, too. I know we have to pay our bills. I have payroll. I have property taxes. I have payroll taxes. It freaking sucks. So I understand where you're coming from when it comes to math. But I don't think we're missing the point, but I think we need to hammer the point that these are freaking people. They're suffering. And they dedicated their lives and William, like Van Wert just did, to this city and to this community. And the spouses and widows had to suffer through everything that their spouses went through serving this community. And now we have an obligation to make sure that they're taken care of, and that's what my organization does. We represent them so they can have a life that's worth living. And we have to do something to support these people because the entire purpose of all of it is to serve each other. So I know it's a big deal for the pension because I know it's math and it's hard. Nobody wants to be on the losing end of any money. But at what point do we not take care of our own? And that's what all this is about. So I would ask all of you to consider that. Yes, we're going to do the math. And we have got to make sure that our ducks are in a row when it comes to math. But we're doing the math for one purpose, and that's to take care of our people. That's what we do. We all signed up for that. And now we have an obligation to make sure that that happens. And that's all I'm asking. Please consider that because without us and making that decision for people that can't care for themselves, we're dead in the water. And we signed up so we can protect people that cannot care for themselves. Thank you. Thank you. So where are we at? You have to run studies no matter what, I assume. Yeah, we're going to have to run studies. But we're only going to run a study on one option. We need an option to send to them. And we've done this, gosh, how many times? I've been involved in this for so long. No, that's what I'm asking for. But it may have to be, and it could be tweaked. I don't think that's right. So have we sent the other things that came out of this to the actuary? No, because we have to wait for the actuary to get done. Then we need to get the experience study done. Then we send these. So you could run the three scenarios from the last meeting of this to the actuary with other options for COLAs and without those options, or the current plan structure with the two options for the COLAs as well. Yeah, because I think this meeting is for COLAs, and then we're going to have to have another meeting just to line out what all we're wanting to send. But we have to wait for the actuary and the experience study to be completed before we can send them to them to get a real-life. The agenda that we have, once we decide here, we will have to come back and go over, maybe do some tweaking, and then that's what we'll wait for until we get it to the actuary and get it back, and then we will see. I think all the other options have been lined out. They're pretty much lined out. There may be a tweak. This one just takes longer discussions, and honestly, my personal opinion, I think we need more options than just the one, one to five. I think we need to get a couple more options to send just to get a real-life look at what we can do. Yeah, I don't want the one to five, I think, is a super extreme solution that, in my opinion, that we cannot pay. And I'm not saying I appreciate the retirees and everything, but part of what we've got to do is make sure there's money in here for current members 100 years from now, and we've got to make sure we're not going to run out of money by giving 5% COLAs. I'm not opposed to running the numbers, but I think we need to send more options. I agree. If this one's way out of the ballpark to choose, then we're going back to square one, which means we don't have another option to look at for COLAs. That's why I'm saying we need a couple more ideas than just one. Because if we all look at one to five and it's not obtainable, then we're back to square one again because we didn't give them more than one option. Does that make sense? Oh, I'm just sitting here biding my time. Well, here's your time. Okay. Based on what I think I'm hearing, we're looking at the 2028 legislative session. Okay. Okay. That's one of my troops. Yeah, because we have to wait for everything to come back this year, and then we can't run it until next year. Susan, if they run the one to five, are they doing 30 years at 1%? Are they doing 2%? 30 years at 3%? Are they doing 5 years at 1%? 5 years at 3%? I don't know. Honestly. Because those are unknown numbers. Those are unknown numbers. I mean, he may have to run it at 5 and be worst case scenario. I don't know. I would have to talk to Todd to see how he would run that. I'm just scared. You know, if we do like the one to five, like it's going to come up with some extreme number and it's going to be like an automatic no. Right. We'll come back at 5. So I was wondering if you need to say. We could very easily ask. You know, what is a. Well, we're already at two. So start at two for everybody. Three, four, five. I mean, you can ask. You know, the actuary runs all three of them. Historically, with a lot of things we've had ran, whatever the number, the target we're shooting for is 75th percentile of whatever it is, right? When we talked about what even the disabilities and stuff, we're not allowed to talk about today. But like whenever we've done this before, what I'm saying is, is that they've shot in the 75th percentile, which ironically is not too far off from, you know, where we would be on the 10-year average or whatever. Anyway, get what I'm saying? Not to say that that's the number, like you've got to run it at, you know, whatever 75% of 3% is or 5% is or whatever, but like whatever that is the target. Well, yeah, I just don't have the knowledge of how they do it. That's why I'm asking is do we need to say run this at 1%, run this at 2%, run this at 3% as opposed to saying run it at 1% to 5%? Right. I do think that's probably the case. Because 1%, that's just a flat out 1% raise on the current COLAs. Yeah. What does that do? And at 2.71. So can one of our options be a 13th check every three years? Yeah. As long as, you know, the steps stay in, you know, as it is. Yeah. And that will be 2029 by the time that's in action. Or 30. So really, what is your thought? I favor the 13th check only because I thought it would be more amenable to the urban county government. But let's go back to this unfunded liability thing. We're at 72%. Am I correct, give or take? The goalpost says 2043, and if I understand what I think I'm hearing, we're looking at not 2043, 2053. We're going to move it out, correct? That was a suggestion. That was a suggestion, is to move the goalpost. Having an unfunded liability does not make you a horrible person. Unless you are statutorily required to have it. But you're getting ready to ask for 2043 to 2053. I'm not asking for anything. No, she did not ask. Just to be clear. Well, is it not my understanding that the proposal would be to move the goalpost similar to that? The proposal that was brought, not by her, was to act. One of the situations looked at last time was to change that thing. If changing that, that means changing the statute. It's just like there was a statute that says I got two to five cost of living, and it went away. So we can change a statute. I'm just not. I'm understanding of an unfunded liability, but I don't say it with a grr in my throat. Lots of pension funds have much higher unfunded liabilities than we do. If we move the goalpost, I'm assuming the unfunded liability will change then also? Yes. No, the liability won't change. The attribution rate will change. Okay. The attribution rate should change. And the funding ratio could change. And obviously the year in which it would become. It should go down. It depends on how we write it. We can't really talk too much about it. That's something in our future meeting we can discuss it. Well, either way, just like Randy Kepley pointed out to you, these are people behind these numbers. And every month, the worst of the worst, the least income is losing buying power, and I wish there was another sense of urgency on this. One of the scenarios that we looked at concurrently to that was changing the tier structure that was the 40 to 50, and we looked at that at the same time. And we haven't talked about that either because that is something that is dramatically different from when this was built. Our salaries now are dramatically different from what existed before. Nobody is retiring at $40,000 or less. I know. Nobody is coming in at $40,000 or less. Is that something we could theoretically tie to a percentage of pension payments? You know, like the bottom third gets this, middle third gets this, top third gets this? So one of the scenarios that we looked at in 2023 was moving that structure. Just moving the structure, leaving the coal is the same, but moving the structure added $12.5 million to the unfunded liability. But it would have moved annuity payments for incoming, for the folks that are coming in, and then some of where folks are landing. So the folks that are in the bottom would have a higher, that 40 to 50 would have higher, and then moving on up. I feel like that, even if we don't go with that version, the idea that our current pay no longer fits with the structure that we have should not be lost. When it was done, when it was written, that was reasonable. That is not reasonable for what is coming anymore. So I don't, if I'm adding anything to this conversation, this is your all's fun, but if I'm adding anything to this conversation, I don't think we should lose sight of the fact that where we've come from and where we're going are a little bit different. Perhaps the tiers that we have are not necessarily where we're going to be in the near future. My statement to that is regardless if you move the tier, everybody is still losing buying power. And in 50 years where we're at now, those people are going to be in that 40,000 less. It's going to happen. Me and him, when we started, we were making $4 an hour. $4 an hour when I started here. And we had hardly no overtime. And if you went to court, you got what was it, $7? $6 a day. $6. Whether you spent five seconds or all day. Okay? And, you know. Well, in our current structure, from 40 to 50, they would effectively get a half a percent raise by looking at the tier. I'm just saying it is a different way to get some solution. Just keep it in mind. When you say it adds $12.5 million to the unfunded liability, that's through the 2043? Is that a new case? It's in the same study. It was in that same 2023 scenarios that they looked at for us. And so, again, it's all in those numbers, so I'm assuming it's that same. However they calculated the $66 million, they also calculated the $12.5. But they were just looking at if we changed the 40 to 50, if we changed the 75 to 80, and those don't have to be the same. The tiers were changed, too, for the study? Mm-hmm. They just increased by 10 for each? $10,000 on the bottom. We changed the bottom from 40 to 50. We changed 75 to 80, and we did 80 and up. But that was just a 2023, and that doesn't have to stand. I reordered. This is just the 2023 study, and I reordered it to look at the same percentages. I brought a few copies. I love this. But just you have this. Your version. My version. It's just reordered. Your version is highlighted. My version is highlighted. My version is highlighted for unfunded liability, and I put the increase on the bottom. But it does a similar thing. It addresses the lowest, the members that are receiving the lowest annuities. It doesn't do the 13th check. It doesn't hit everybody. But it does create some structural movement. It's just something to keep in mind. Unless we change the goalpost, I can't vote for anything that isn't across the board, that creates a giant increase to our unfunded liability. That is my vote. I assume $12 million is not giant. I don't think that that's giant. I think it is an effort toward a compromise that is trying to meet the needs of our membership and also is trying to be reasonable in our goal of reaching our unfunded liability. But that has to be paramount for me. We have an end date that is statutory right now that has to be my primary objective. Just out of curiosity, just because I came up with that idea, how does that correspond? Well, it would depend on how many, if we did it every two years or every three years, or how often we thought we would have that between now and 2043, how much that would add to it. So if we said we think it will be every two years or we think it will be every three years, we'll just have to see. Well, me and Ethan were having a little side discussion, but if we just say a third or whatever percentage we want, then we wouldn't have to go back and change numbers. Like, okay, well, this year we want to go up to 60,000. We don't have to run it. What's a third? Tell me again. You know, instead of doing, like, 50, 80, you know, the zero to 50, 50 to 80, 80 and above, you just set it to, like, third percent. Like the bottom third would get, you know, 80%. Oh, I have no idea what that would be. I don't know how many people we have for the bottom third. I don't have any concept of. That would be hard. Logistically, I'm not sure how that would work. Yeah, as people retire, that would move. That would change, yeah. Yeah, I mean, it's going to change every year. Yeah, have fun. All right. We're getting. Susan's probably going back. There is nothing wrong with us coming up with two or three scenarios to send to the actuary. I would like to finalize, you know, one, two, three, whatever we want to do, you know, instead of just sitting here and. It's our weather radio. I feel like every time we're in here, it goes off. Every time we're in here, it goes off. It could be weather. I'm getting under the table. Where's the fallout shield? Does anybody know, on this proposed schedule, which one was she referring to that was the $12.5 million? It was the scenario one. Oh. I was going to say here. Yeah, I don't know. That's what was. That was the numbers when they agreed. That went. What's that? It's the same thing from the 23. I just put it in a different one. On 23, the 12.5, it should be scenario two, I think. What about scenario two? On this one. Okay. Which was 1%, 1.5, and 2%. Okay. So, what does the committee want to do? So, we already have the one to five. We've got a 13th check every third year. And keeping the COLA ratings intact with a 13th check. Yeah. Every three years. Yeah. And then Aaron suggests the scenarios two. Is that right? So, we're talking about three different scenarios, correct? Because scenario two, Aaron, was that just leaving the COLAs the same, just moving the post, moving the dollars. Is that correct? Yeah. So, on my version, it's scenario one. I don't think it's their scenario one. Yeah. But I'm not tied to those dollar amounts. That's just what we looked at. Okay. But you're leaving the COLAs one, 1.5, and two, correct? Yes. Okay. I'm just making sure. I mean, yeah. I don't know if those dollar amounts are appropriate or not appropriate. I just like the idea of looking at the structure of the hearing. Are they just arbitrary dollar amounts, or do they actually correspond? That would be interesting to know what our average pension is. Do you know what the average pension check is? You may not. I don't. Anecdotally. He'll just tell you that right now. I have no idea. I would have to run a query. Can we add the scenario and then come back with the information to put in the dollar amounts later? I'm sorry. I got lost here. What are we talking about? So we're talking about option two on that, what was ran previously. Not on that number. What's on that? Hers doesn't. If you like those numbers, I think. So that's Aaron. It's moving the handle on that one. I'll be following guys later. Would you stop that? I was not listening. No. I can see it's too much work. I don't know. But tell me. Yeah, no. I agree. Yeah. I think hers are different. Hers is one. Ours is two. Yeah. On the thing that was ran in 23 is option two. But what Aaron's saying is those numbers don't, they're not actually the gospel. You all can modify those numbers, but they'd like to know what the average salary is now of a current pension, which we don't know. To give a firm a reference. To give a firm, to kind of decide what that range looks like. Just the average salary. If you're looking to pull up numbers, I'd like to see the bottom. The average. Quarter, bottom third. Well. Obviously we now have time because we're not going to be, you know, we're going to have to wait for the experience study and then all that. But I mean, if we're tied to these three, but yet maybe tweak in this scenario to thing with additional data regarding average salary and thirds. Quarters, thirds. She's loved it. She actually just couldn't wait for you to ask. What is a realistic number of scenarios to have run? I mean, I don't. I prefer. I mean, we have to pay for them. So, I mean, I just thought that at least three different ones would work. I mean, if you're going to send five or six, I mean, that's, that's just to me is a lot. And it also gets to be confusion. Yeah. But last time we, what was it? 23. We sit, we have like five different subjects. And we seem like three, each one. And we budgeted 10,000. And then like, we ran that and then we could put them all together and run a number or something. I remember that all costs 10,000. These scenarios are going to be run attached to. Normally it's about 10,000. Scenarios that have already been discussed. So that's going to be. It's going to be a quite a bit. Really. Probably be the current. I mean, I don't have any problem. Like one to three. What's the 2%. What's the 3%. What's the 4%. You know, what's the 5%. I think that's probably. That's kind of what. That's what you really want. Like, so we could run your zero to five or one to five. And we can run a zero to three. You can add that in there. Yeah. You know. Huh? So. So one to five. And then a zero to three. Yeah. So if half a percent, $66 million more. By your. Thought. We're willing to add 400 million to go three. Well, I'm just giving a different option. Yeah. One in five. I think you should. Look at it. I mean, my thought would be just for everyone to kind of come to a decision on. Yeah. I want to get. I want to barrel this down. To where we don't have this happening again. We'll have what. Three. We may end up tweaking those. A little bit. Let's get it. Or four or well, whatever it is. Four scenario. I have one to five percent tied to the CPI. I have zero to three. Tied to the CPI. 13th check. Continue with the existing Cola structure. And then I have scenario. Well, your scenario one. 20. 23 would scenario two, which was. Leaving the Cola at one, one and a half too. But changing the annual benefit. Portion. Which. That's not. You're wanting to come back with what the average salary and trying. Trying. That's a big word. Trying to do the. And thirds. If they're doing the tiered. Method. The scenario too. But they want to know what salary range. Before they said. Yeah. That's. Right. And that's. Yeah. I mean, there's going to have to be some tweaks. All right. What. What is the. Consistence of the. Committee. Those four. Those four. So. I'll have to ask. Everybody that's in favor of. Of those four. Please. Raise your hand. That are in the committee. Sure. Okay. Passes. All right. So, wait. We'll have to meet again. Once we get this information. Okay. Which information. Yeah. The salary. Okay. Well, we're here. We've asked for a lot of information. Every salary. Until I get the experience. Study back at the end of the year. So, this one. I'm going to. Be able to go to. Until. Until. First of next year. All right. Yes. Absolutely. All right. So, we will meet again. When do you all want to meet again? All that last time. We settled this. I think. What we're going to need. To come back to. Is. A. Flow chart. Of. What we're going to need. To come back to. Is. A. Flow chart. Of. What we're going to need. To come back to. Is. Go. What pieces we want. With what. Because. The. Unfunded liability. Piece. Is going to matter. If it's a. 10 Year. 20 Year. With. The cola. Piece with a. 13. Check piece. With all of those different things. All of that. Is going to matter. In their. Calculations. If. The 2043. Doesn't change. And then you apply. A 13th. Check. Or a. Whatever. Do you know what I'm. Saying. There's going to be a package. It's going to look like a matrix. I would think. Like if we pick this. Yes. This, this, and this. Right. If we pick this one. This, this, and this. Exactly. Okay. I getcha. All right. It's. It's a matrix. It's a matrix. We decide. You know. Whatever. It doesn't matter. Good. So we need a full. Legislative subcommittee. I'm done. Okay. Just a column. When it sounds like. Okay. If everybody's. Yeah. In agreement to that. Then we will. Entertain a motion to. Adjourn. To the next meeting. So moved. This is. All in favor. Okay. Yeah. We got 45 minutes. I have.