Police & Fire Subcommittee 3-12-25

Summary

Meeting Overview

The Pension Board convened at 9:31 on March 12, 2025. The meeting covered three agenda items, all of which were informational in nature: a discussion of a CERS Pension Fund access issue, a review of recruitment and pension fund transferability, and agenda setting and prioritization. No votes were taken and no public comments were heard during the session.

Attendance

The following members were present at the March 12, 2025 meeting:

• Ken Armstrong
• Aaron
• Bill
• Glenda
• Tommy

No members were recorded as absent or late.

Contested Items

• CERS Pension Fund Access Issue: A heated discussion arose regarding police recruits and officers who were unable to access their County Employees Retirement System (CERS) funds. The disagreement centered on the question of responsibility — specifically, whether it was the city's obligation to resolve the access issue or whether the matter should be directed to the pension board itself. The discussion did not yield a clearly documented resolution in the available record, and no specific outcome or assigned party was identified in the meeting data.

CERS Pension Fund Access Issue

1:00

The meeting included a discussion regarding an issue affecting police recruits and officers who are unable to access funds held in the County Employees Retirement System (CERS) due to their current city employment status.

Key speakers on this item were Ken Armstrong and Aaron, who presented the matter for informational purposes.

Key concerns raised included:

• Police recruits and officers are being blocked from accessing their CERS funds as a result of their city employment status
• Affected individuals are unable to transfer or withdraw their funds from CERS
• Dormancy fees are being assessed on these accounts, meaning employees are incurring ongoing financial costs while having no ability to act on or manage their own funds

The discussion was informational in nature, with no formal action taken or vote recorded at this time. The item appears to have been brought forward to make officials aware of the situation facing affected personnel, particularly the compounding concern that employees are being penalized through dormancy fees on accounts they cannot access or move.

No resolution or next steps were documented in the available data for this item.

Recruitment and Pension Fund Transferability

5:08

The meeting included a discussion on the relationship between pension fund transferability and recruitment, examining how the portability of pension benefits may affect the city's ability to attract and retain employees.

Key speakers on this item were Ken Armstrong and Aaron, who engaged in a discussion around whether the issue of pension fund transferability falls within the purview of the city or the pension board to address.

The discussion centered on the practical impact that pension transferability — or the lack thereof — has on recruitment efforts. The ability for prospective employees to transfer pension funds from previous employers or to future employers can be a significant factor in a candidate's decision to accept a position, and the conversation explored how this dynamic may be influencing the city's competitiveness in hiring.

A central question raised during the discussion was one of jurisdiction and responsibility: should the city government take steps to address pension transferability concerns as part of its broader recruitment strategy, or does this issue more appropriately fall under the authority and responsibility of the pension board?

The item was informational in nature, and no formal action or decision was taken as a result of the discussion.

Agenda Setting and Prioritization

12:40

The board engaged in a discussion on organizing both short-term and long-term agenda items for upcoming meetings. Key speakers in this discussion were Ken Armstrong and Aaron.

The conversation centered on prioritizing several substantive policy topics that require the board's attention, including:

• The DROP (Deferred Retirement Option Plan) program — identified as an item requiring agenda time and further deliberation
• 20-year retirement provisions — flagged as a topic to be scheduled for discussion
• Disability considerations — noted as another area needing to be addressed in the board's planning

The discussion was informational in nature, focused on sequencing and scheduling these items rather than reaching decisions on the underlying policy questions themselves. No final determinations were made on the substantive matters; the outcome of this agenda item was to acknowledge the topics that need to be worked through and to begin organizing how they will be taken up in the near and longer term.