Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPension & Audit Committee February 20, 2018 PENSION & AUDIT COMMITTEE COMMISSION CHAMBER FEBRUARY 20, 2018 PRESENT: Hons. Hardie Davis, Jr., Mayor, Mary Davis, Mayor Pro Tem; Sean Frantom, Finance Committee Chairman; Janice Jackson, Administrator; Donna Williams, Finance Director, members; Sias, Hasan, Fennoy, Guilfoyle, D. Williams, M. Williams, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission; Jody Smitherman, Sr. Staff Attorney; Lena Bonner, Clerk of Commission. ABSENT: Hons. Smith and Jefferson, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission. Mr. Mayor: All right, good afternoon. We’re going to go ahead and call our Pension Committee Meeting to order. We want to welcome back to the city Rocky, Randy and Malachi who have a presentation I believe everybody has a copy of this at this time. This is an expansion th of our conversation from January 16 that we had and today is the day that we hope to revisit the recommendations or at least what the proposals are. And after we’ve had a chance to discuss that then we’ll hopefully, we’ll be in a posture to make some decisions about what our next steps are to get us on down the road. All right, Rocky, if you’ll go ahead we’ll give you an opportunity. I think there’s about eleven slides in the presentation so --- Mr. Joyner: Yes, very few. Mr. Mayor: --- if you’ll prepare your questions we’ll then get to them as we go through. All right, go ahead. Mr. Joyner: Good to see everyone again. The presentation is, it’s fairly brief, there’s some duplication. First page again we focus on Retirement Planning. The whole purpose of retirement being able to have income after retirement, three legs of the stool. First one Savings, Social Security and Pension Plan which you have all three elements here in Augusta. The current plan is just listed again on Page 3 I don’t want to go back through that. The key thing here is the multiplier is 1.65% essentially that’s the one we’re focusing on is what the change we can do to the multiplier. That’s a discussion here about what people are actually getting and it’s not a plan people are going to get rich on but it is a good plan that supplements social security, gives them a good solid base for retirement going into their retirement years. Here’s where we are on Page 5. We narrowed down the suggestions for change to essentially two suggestions on Benefit Change and one suggestion on how to pay for it. The first thing would be to provide a flat 2% benefit for all service recruited after July 1, 2018. That means that service prior to July 1, 2018 would still be at the 1.65% multiplier and all service on or after that date would be at 2%. That would increase the annual contribution by $1.15 million which is 1.16% of payroll if all of it were to be paid for by the city in their regular budgeting. If you went retroactive and made the 2% for all prior service in the Plan and all future service the contribution requirement would be $3.2 million-dollar increase or 3.25% of pay again if the city were picking up the whole amount. The third thing we’ve done is on the next page where we split the 1.16% and 3.25% contribution increases into splitting it between employee and the city and as you will see in a moment any combination of those work as long as you get to the point. One thing I’ll point here and that’s on the next page 1 these numbers are all based on the July 1, 2017 actuarial valuation. The July 1, 2018 valuation will be coming out in August or September and it will reflect the new numbers based on assets and things of that type. Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: Rocky, let’s take a few questions. The Chair recognizes the Commissioner th from the 7. Mr. Frantom: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Mayor. What was the reason on picking stst July 1, what’s the process is it going to take that long for implementation and why was July 1 chosen or is that what you’re basing on. st Mr. Joyner: Two reasons. One, July 1 is your valuation date so it ties in with doing the actual variations in the numbers for the city. Secondly, I talked to the GMA attorneys and we actually have a timetable in the back of this presentation that goes backwards from July 1, 2018 to show you the steps that need to happen to make implementation possible July 1, 2018 so that’s also in here. So, it works both ways from a financial standpoint and from a getting the job done to get an effective standpoint. st Mr. Frantom: By when will we have to approve the changes for July 1 implementation? Mr. Joyner: By the end of March. Mr. Frantom: End of March, thank you. th Mr. Mayor: Okay all right, the Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 4. Mr. Sias: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Joyner, just for clarity when we talk about past service just me, the only employees that we’re talking about for the 2.0 would be present employees. It won’t go, would that have any effect on employees who are already retired? Mr. Joyner: No, sir. We’re strictly talking about those that are currently active employees. And I won’t even say current. I would say they’re active employees as of the effective date of the change. So, if you’ve got someone who’s active today and leaves before July 1, 2018 they don’t get the increase. Mr. Sias: They better hang around, huh? Mr. Joyner: That’s right. st Mr. Sias: Okay just and one last thing will we this July 1 implementation date, that is also the date then at that point where the city’s, will we have to, we don’t have to do any lump sum st adjustment for past time just start at the new rates for the city annual employees at that July 1 action. Mr. Joyner: It’s actually better than that for the city --- 2 Mr. Sias: Okay. Mr. Joyner: --- we’ll do the valuation July 1, 2018 but the valuation is set for the budget year beginning January 1, 2019. So, when we do the 2018, if you adopt things let’s say in March and we get everything done July 1, ’18 is the first valuation where we’ll recognize the changes. But for budgeting purposes it kicks in January 1, 2109 from the city’s budget because that’s the way, your structure. Mr. Sias: That’s very good. Now for the employees when do their new deductions start? Mr. Joyner: That one I would have to defer to the attorneys. I’m not, I don’t I don’t know the answer off the top of my head. Mr. Sias: Okay. Mr. Joyner: I think normally, Randy, do you have an opinion on that? Mr. Speaker: I don’t (inaudible). Mr. Joyner: We’ll have to double check and get back to you on that. It’ll either be July 1 or January 1 and I would think you could probably, I would probably recommend to the attorneys we start both the contributions the same date January 1. It makes sense to me. Mr. Sias: Thank you. Mr. Mayor: I think we agree with that, Rocky, from a continuity standpoint that given that we’ll be preparing it from a budgetary perspective. It also gives our employees certainty in terms of knowing that starting in 2019 that this is what they will be expecting. We’re going to have some discussion along the way about what the typical employee would anticipate seeing out of their paycheck as a result of that so, I think that would be helpful information as well when we get to that, okay? All right very good, I think we’ve got a couple more questions, the Commissioner th from the 6. Mr. Hasan: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Rocky, how you doing, sir? Mr. Joyner: I’m doing well, thank you. Mr. Hasan: You made mention about the valuation around July. What could be the potential impact of that one way or the other, the valuation? Mr. Joyner: Major impacts are where the assets do from 7-1-17 to 7-1-18. As you know stst from 7-1-17 to December 31 the stock market was straight up. From December 31 to now it’s been a rollercoaster ride. My gut feeling is from then to now it’s up a little bit but that will impact the valuation. It does not impact the dollar for dollar because with the funding of the mechanism we recognize that Augusta is a perpetual city. You’re not going out of business anytime soon so we’ll take the impact of the market and smooth that over a 10-year period so you don’t feel the 3 impact immediately but that’ll have some impact on it. The other impact would be whatever salary increases you gave from July 1 to July 1, 2018, who quit, who died, who retired during the period, all of that will affect the numbers. We do not anticipate the effect will be large on the numbers we’ve already given you but I just want to make sure it probably won’t be 3.25. It might be 3.20, it might be 3.28, 3.30, it’ll be a slightly different number. Mr. Hasan: Okay second question. I think you might’ve answered it when Commissioner Sias asked it but I was going to ask it again for clarity. Out of one of the two suggestions you have here where you have the $1.15 million and you’ve got 3.25% to cover payroll, $3.20 million here, when you say provide a flat 2% benefit for all employees for all past and future service would that like Commissioner Sias was saying so that’s for current active employees you’re saying? Mr. Joyner: It’s current active employees only. That’s correct. Mr. Hasan: And so other than that plan you’re saying the other plan pretty much will it, people who get hired after July? Mr. Joyner: If you’re a current active employee on the date, all your service you are in the future would get the higher rate too and all new hires. Mr. Hasan: Okay what about, so there’s nothing here to enhance persons who currently retired and no, would they have to buy time back pretty much buy those years of service back? Mr. Joyner: Current retirees are not part of the discussion here. Current retirees have gotten COLA increases since the time they retired until now so their benefit has been bumped up. We could look at increases to the retirees if you want to but that would be a completely separate plan that would have to be pretty much paid for by the city because there is no other source of income to pay for those folks’ increase. Mr. Hasan: Okay all right, thank you, sir. Mr. Mayor: And, Commissioner Hasan, I think you’re going to see a little bit more clarity when we get to Page 8 Slide 8 --- Mr. Hasan: Okay. Mr. Mayor: --- where it’ll just again show you how we arrive at these numbers of Slide 5. Rocky, go ahead. Mr. Joyner: All right, we did talk about two other benefits and just real briefly for now anyway we decided that in speaking with the GMA folks and looking, talking to some of your staff here these would be extremely difficult administratively right now. You have a fairly complicated plan after the merger anyway with lots of moving parts. The Bridge Benefit, the problem with that is the EEOC has stuck their nose into it and created a lot of things to make it more difficult to put Bridge Benefits in place so unless you just really, really want to go down that road and we would not recommend doing it. We would recommend splitting it in pieces. If you want to talk about 4 Bridge Benefits that’s going to take a longer period of time, the Attorneys are going to have to get involved, we’re going to have to look at it. The other thing on Purchasing Service you have a lot of wrinkles in your plan where people have already purchased past service. They’ve done different things and once again that’s not a short term study to look at, that’s one we got to get the lawyers involved in and I would strongly recommend you put that on the back burner for now, if forever. Mr. Sias: Noted. Mr. Mayor: Rocky, we have a couple more questions. The Chair recognizes the th Commissioner from the 6. Mr. Hasan: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So if I understand you correctly in what you just mentioned about Bridge Benefits so you’re saying now in essence with that in mind if you don’t recommend us putting in place a mandatory or suggestive retirement at 55 for our Public Services persons then, right? Mr. Joyner: Your Public Services folks have an earlier eligibility now then your general employee folks anyway they can retire at 55 --- Mr. Hasan: Okay. Mr. Joyner: --- that’s already in your plan --- Mr. Hasan: Okay. Mr. Joyner: --- what you’d be doing is increasing the multiplier from 1.65% to 2.00% for everyone in the plan which then gives the Public Services people more money in their pocket if they want to go out at 55, it helps them to be able to do that better. It’s not as good, it’s not the same thing as a Bridge Benefit but it is, you know, it’s a significant amount more than they would be getting now. Mr. Hasan: Okay because I know the last time we were speaking we were speaking to the issue I think you might have just addressed it around the issue of Social Security not kicking into 10 or 12 years later and so we were trying to find some way to carry them up to that point. And so right now you’re saying that’s off the table. Mr. Joyner: It’s off the table for now and there’s several reasons why. One, the EEOC issues, two listening to the discussion here about city council and the officers in the Fire Department when they stood and spoke they seem to not be as interested as they were in the 2.00% multiplier so that’s why we went in that direction. And for administrative purposes going from 1.65 to 2% can be done and it can be effective July 1, 2018. Adding a Bridge Benefit may take longer and become more convoluted. Some were worried about that. Mr. Hasan: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, sir. 5 Mr. Mayor: Yeah, Commissioner Hasan, one of the goals that I think we gave going into this discussion was we wanted this to be a simple process. And again, I go back to that word certainty it provides certainty with the defined benefit that all employees will be eligible for. So, it’s not just our Public Safety and Law Enforcement but our entire employee pool as well. Mr. Hasan: Thank you, sir. Mr. Mayor: Yes sir, questions (unintelligible) th Mr. Sias: Thank you and to address what my colleague from the 6 brought up, I was also a proponent, an initial proponent of the mandatory 55 but after having talked with several of our leaders in Public Safety that went off the table for me as well due to the fact they do have certain physical requirements that have to meet as far as their physical stamina, physical ability and if they can do that at 58, age 60 then technically they are eligible to do that job so I am not in favor of the mandatory 55 at all, okay? Thank you, thank you, Mr. Joyner. Mr. Joyner: The next slide just gives you a summary. This was in the last presentation. The overall cost you see the 3.25% and the 1.16% and the increases and the dollar amounts. This slide on Page 8 is the one where we’ve taken the 1.16% and the 3.25% and just split it up into components between the city making the contribution and the employees making the contribution. There is no magic to any of these. Essentially you’ve got to come with 3.25% of pay. Who pays for it? You can make the employees pay 1%, the city pick up 2.25%, make the employees pay 2.00% and the city pick up 1.25% or any combination thereof in between, splitting in half and half or whatever you want to do. So, this is the area of decision that I think once you choose one of the ways of doing the 2% multiplier now you decide how you want to pay for it and this where you have to look at the city budget, you have to look at the impact on members take home pay and those sorts of things. And but here you can see there’s no magic to it. You just pick your combination and go with it. Any questions on that? Mr. Mayor: No, not yet. Okay all right so, as we’re thinking about this slide, as we’re thinking about this slide I want to give, and I don’t know if you have the example that we have in terms of what the impact would be, Rocky. Mr. Joyner: I do not have it my slide deck. Do we have it in the handout? Mr. Mayor: Just as a practical point, one of the things that I think we heard in our meeting in January as well as what we consistently heard from folks who came and had discussions with us in our previous Pension Committee meetings is that there was in fact a general sentiment that the employees were in fact in favor of putting more in. We consistently heard that. And so to that end I think we’ve got a couple of examples or one in particular that will show you what that looks like and let’s pass that out, let’s pass that out. Okay all right, have you got a copy of that, Natasha? Mr. Joyner: Do you want me to walk through it --- Mr. Mayor: Yes. 6 Mr. Joyner: --- okay. This is a person that is making $30,000 dollars a year in salary currently. If you increase the contribution rate from 4%, which is what they’re paying now, to 6.25%, a 2.25% increase, then the difference per pay period is almost just short of $26.00 dollars a pay period more they would contribute to the plan. It’s about $675.00 dollars a year. One note on this is the $25.96 per pay period that will not be a direct hit to take home pay because the contributions come in on a pretax basis so depending on the individual’s tax situation that may be $20 to $25.00 dollars a pay period depending on what the situation is. The benefit would go from 1.65% to 2% which would increase the multiplier from 49 ½ up to 60% which for a person in this situation retiring with $30,000 a year, $32,000 dollars a year final average pay the difference is about $3,360.00 dollars a year. Almost, a little short of $300 a month. So that’s what you have and those are the cost increases and the benefit increases. And of course you multiply that if it’s a $60,000 dollar salary just double everything. And just also to note the $25.96 is payable while you’re working and the $33.60 increase in benefits payable for their whole life, the rest of their life. Mr. Sias: Did you run any other examples on this particular one on Mr. Smith? Did you run any other that’s the four, at 6.25% where basically, did you run any of the other examples? Mr. Joyner: We did not. We just, we put, this was a last minute addition to the presentation that particularly your Finance Director thought might be helpful to see an individual person so this was put together at the last minute. We can run any scenarios you want and it’s just a straight pro- rata ratio between the 2.25% and the whatever contribution rate you go back to. Mr. Sias: The concern I had I would’ve liked to have seen the 2.00% city, 1.25% employee and also the 1.63% and the 50/50 split. Between looking at the long-term life of it, I’m kind of leaning to the one, initially I had the 2.00% and the 1.25% but I think for the overall health and long term costs it might be better to go with the 50/50 split which is just to have a difference but for the health of the long-term program that’s the way I was thinking now. Mr. Joyner: And from an actuarial standpoint funding the plan whatever way you guys split the costs, the plan doesn’t have an opinion on it. It’s neutral to it. It’s just who’s pocket it comes out of. Mr. Sias: Okay, thank you. st Mr. Mayor: Okay, the Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 1. Mr. Fennoy: Mr. Mayor, my only concern and it’s really not a concern because the employees are the ones that’s going to receive the benefit. But what I want to know is whether they will be okay with the $15,008 Plan or would they be comfortable with the $19,200 dollar plan because they are the ones that’s going to actually receive the benefit so I don’t want to support anything that’s going to be against what they’re trying to do. Mr. Frantom: Okay, thank you, Commissioner Hasan? Are you done? Mr. Hasan: Yes, I was going to --- 7 Mr. Fennoy: I’m finished. Mr. Hasan: --- and I just along those lines to what Mr. Rocky just said about we’re making a decision along with what Commissioner Fennoy just made mention of, I wonder what’s going to be our plan of action about we understand in many ways how our Public Safety feels to a greater degree may not be as an absolute but we understand their concerns. How do we get the rest of the employees before us in some form or fashion to hear what they think about, you know, this $26.00 dollars per pay period which comes to about $52.00 dollars a month, $675.00 dollars a year, how do they feel about it as well and how do we make our decisions and so what plan of action are we going to be planning to make that happen. It’s just something to think about we don’t have to do that today --- Mr. Frantom: Right --- Mr. Hasan: --- but it’s going to be something that we’re going to have to have that discussion to Commissioner Fennoy’s point. Mr. Frantom: --- anything else, are you good? Mr. Hasan: Yes, sir. Mr. Frantom: Commissioner Sias. Mr. Sias: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and when we look at this I think as we went through this process did we overall support for employees to make this change? So, you know, we had a survey planned that we scrapped and I just think we should be very careful to not delay this process to not be able to enact it by 1 July. So, if we want to get some thought from some employees and Directors or whoever, you know, bring them down and let them speak on it. But I just want us to caution that we don’t get into a survey mode to do this and delay it. I haven’t heard nothing but overwhelming support to make this change and I’ve heard great support for shared contributions both between the city and employees. So, I can appreciate that but I just hope we don’t end up delaying this. It’s been years getting this far. And so I think we just need to be proactive and get th some information like my colleague from the 6 suggested but I think there needs to be definitely in line with making this happen by 1 July we’re making the decision in March. Mr. Frantom: Thank you, I totally agree. Rocky, can we go back to Slide 8? One of the things the Pension Committee and obviously the body given some direction on where we need to go moving forward as we got to determine whether we’re going to do the prospect of only or the all service and I think we all need to be on the same page at least this to where we can narrow it down so when we have the options come back in March. Does everybody agree to the all service? I mean is that where we’re headed? Mr. Sias: Absolutely. Mr. Frantom: I mean, is that the all service? 8 Mr. Sias: Absolutely. Mr. Frantom: Mayor Pro Tem, are you, yeah, all services number. Ms. Jackson: Yes, all years of service versus only going forward from this day from July 1, 2018. Mr. Frantom: All services then and going forward is that what we all agree --- Ms. Davis: Yes. Mr. Frantom: --- that we need to focus on, okay. So that’ll give us some direction for the next meeting. Commissioner Hasan? Mr. Hasan: No, I just wanted to from my colleagues absolutely I agree with what you were saying about that. In no form or fashion was I implying that we need to get beyond trying to get this implemented by March, I absolutely agree. I just wanted this (unintelligible) where we can get a tally beyond. But our Public Services personnel have led this conversation and they’re taking us in a great direction. I just wanted to step outside the box and get a little bit more feedback so people know the impact of that on their paycheck from paycheck to paycheck. But absolutely, there’s nothing that I was suggesting or implying in any form or fashion that we don’t do this in a timely manner because I absolutely support it. Mr. Frantom: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Guilfoyle? Mr. Guilfoyle: Thank you, this is actually for the Finance Director. Donna, as far as the presentation that was given to this body on July 1, 2017 you had a, under the from the GMA they had a flat 2.00% for all services. Can we put this up there on that screen? Ms. Williams: Is that the same that’s on Page 7 in this presentation? Mr. Sias: Yes --- Ms. Williams: Okay. Mr. Sias: --- the same as page 7. Mr. Guilfoyle: All right, as far as doing a flat 2.00% for all service that’s for First Responders as well as our city employees for all employees but not previously retired employees, is that correct? Ms. Williams: Right. Mr. Guilfoyle: What’s to keep us from moving on that? 9 Ms. Williams: Sorry? Mr. Guilfoyle: What’s to keep us from you know moving forward on going ahead and doing a 2.00% multiplier? Ms. Williams: Well, that’s what the group just agreed to move forward with --- Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay. Ms. Williams: --- now we’ve got to figure out the funding mechanism and the split of the $3.2 million-dollars between the employee and employer and that’s the information on Page 8 in Mr. Joyner’s current presentation --- Mr. Guilfoyle: All right. Ms. Williams: --- that he had on the screen. Mr. Guilfoyle: Mr. Chairman, before this meeting ends can we hear from the spokesperson from the Fire Department as far as from them as well? Mr. Frantom: Absolutely? Mr. Guilfoyle: Thank you. Mr. Frantom: Commissioner Sias? Mr. Sias: Yeah, Mr. Joyner, can you go back to Slide 8? Mr. Joyner: Yes, sir. Mr. Sias: For group consideration and for us to have a concept of moving forward, I think there’s a considered proposal out there but I want to put this one out. The one where we go one, two what is it the fourth one down on this one where it says the 3.25% and we get a split between 1.63% and 1.63%. And there was a city input of $1,607, $1.6 million and I want to ask the Administrator a question. If that was the one we chose, Madam Administrator, what would you consider the financial hurdles for us to get to that if that’s a fair question I could ask today. If it’s not, then I’ll withdraw it. But what would you consider the hurdles for us to get the $1.6 million in there? Ms. Jackson: Sir, that’s one of the things I would like for us to take some time to consider. I just looked at these numbers yesterday afternoon so I’d to have a little time to review our budget to figure out how we’d get to that amount of money and recommend an appropriate split for you. Mr. Sias: Well in that idea then, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Chairman, whichever one is running it I would strongly suggest then that we take the fourth item no, the third item 1.63 split and if we see 10 budgetary issues let’s look at the one below that one. But really let’s examine those two, let’s examine those two. Ms. Jackson: We can review those and make a report back to you at the next meeting. Mr. Sias: And that’s my suggestion, Mr. Mayor, not laying anyone out there but just to say let’s look closely at those two options. Ms. Davis: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Mayor: Yeah, I think that, all right so let’s calibrate everybody. All right, Rocky, go ahead. Mr. Joyner: If I may also I really don’t encourage you, these were just illustrative samples I put together. Don’t feel like you’re locked in to the 1.63 the two and a quarter. If you decide you want to do 1.25% for the city and 2.00% for the employees, anything that adds up to 3.25% works. So once you look at your budget and can deal in there if you say 1.63% might be a little strong but maybe 1.25% is doable go with that and back into the employee rate. Mr. Mayor: All right, okay, a couple of things let’s kind of calibrate ourselves for a moment. The slide that’s before us and I’m going to come to you Mayor Pro Tem. The slide that’s before us I think there are a couple of things that we all generally agree on and one of those is that we’re going to consider all service as opposed to perspective service. So the top portion of this slide we can take that off the table. That’s where we are from a practical standpoint, we’re going to consider all years of service. And I think again from just a strategic standpoint the key phrase is solvency, the ability for employees to contribute knowing they’ve got a defined benefit upon retirement that they’ve not only paid into but the city’s paid a portion into because this is much different than a defined contribution plan. This is a defined benefit process with three components. I think that first slide that you had the retirement model is Social Security, its Pension and then it’s Personal Contribution. That’s extremely important for us from a calibration standpoint knowing th as we’re going into this. So I think the, so all service and I hear the Commissioner from the 4 acknowledging Number 3 and Number 4 that those are the two models that we’ll give consideration to. Mr. Frantom: Or some combination in between. Mr. Mayor: Yeah. Ms. Davis: Right. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Joyner: Mr. Mayor --- Mr. Mayor: All right, go ahead, Rocky. 11 Mr. Joyner: --- one more comment from the (unintelligible) gallery here. Mr. Mayor: Sure. Mr. Joyner: Once you set the employee contribution rate it is, it takes a plan amendment to change that rate in the future. That’s pretty much set. The employer, the city contribution rate will change from year to year based on the experience of the plan. Now from the time we do the consolidated until now consolidated plan until now that contribution rate’s actually going down most years. A couple of years it went up a little bit but then came back down. So keep that in mind that the city’s on the hook for the difference whatever it might be. Mr. Mayor: That’s correct. Mr. Joyner: Okay. Mr. Mayor: All right, Mayor Pro Tem? Ms. Davis: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I was just trying to get a deadline I guess from the Finance Director. When you all do come back to us with these numbers and after looking at our budget, what’s an appropriate deadline where we have to make these decisions to get this effective st July 1? Mr. Hasan: End of March. Mr. Mayor: End of March. Ms. Davis: End of March, okay. Mr. Joyner: Mr. Mayor, now on Page 9 this a calendar of events --- Mr. Mayor: Sure. Mr. Joyner: --- you have to make your adoption in March. In April the GMA folks will write the amendments, get with your and then look through the amendments with your Attorney. By the end of May you then have a second bite of the apple to adopt the amendments that have been written. By the end of May we need those amendments adopted and signed and in place so the GMA people can then do their work as far as setting up the administration for the plan change so it’s ready to roll July 1. Mr. Mayor: All right, so we’re tracking with that. Just a couple of things. Most of you can go back and refer to the amended plan that we already have in place, we just recently did some changes to that and so you should have a copy of that. If not we’ll make sure we transmit that once more, Donna, but you recently just sent that out again already so I want to draw everybody’s attention. This calendar that’s in front of us is something that we certainly can work towards and achieve. I don’t see any real complications with us being able to achieve those dates given what we know today. 12 Mr. Frantom: So --- th Mr. Mayor: All right, the Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 7, go ahead. th Mr. Frantom: --- so we’re going to move forward with scheduling a meeting on March 6 at 12:30 for the next Pension Committee to discuss this? Mr. Mayor: Sure, it sounds fine to me. All right so --- Mr. Guilfoyle: Can we get information prior? Mr. Mayor: --- all right, hold on, hold on. Mr. Frantom: Yeah, get the information prior. Mr. Mayor: Hold on just a second, everybody. All right, the Chair recognizes the Attorney Smitherman. Ms. Smitherman: If I may, just a reminder that the GMA’s plan is an ordinance so, it will take two readings to get through. So, any time that we can build in to account for that any earlier we can do it, it would be a plus for us since we do have an ordinance to deal with. th Mr. Mayor: I think the Commissioner from the 4 is trying to preempt that and waive the second reading in advance, you know, who you are, he’s trying to do it all. Mr. Hasan: As well as the formation in order to waive that as well. Mr. Mayor: Yeah, yeah --- Mr. Hasan: Suspend the rules. Mr. Mayor: --- right, right, right. Mr. Frantom: Are we going to hear from the Public Safety (inaudible). Mr. Mayor: All right, we can do that. Let’s make sure we completed the presentation. Rocky, are you? Mr. Joyner: All set. Mr. Mayor: Okay, all right do we have any other comments from Randy or Malachi? Mr. Joyner: I think we’re good. Mr. Mayor: Okay, all right. 13 Mr. Sias: Ms. Williams just said something --- Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Sias: --- I don’t know what she said. Mr. Mayor: She’s going to whisper it in your ear. Mr. Hasan: Mr. Mayor, I do have a question for her. Mr. Mayor, this question’s more to us. I think you might have been out but you know this as well for sure. Mr. Rocky was making mention that if we’re talking about what we’re talking doing and coming up with the resources to make all this happen. This is an in-house decision, so my question is do we make that decision prior to Mr. Rocky coming back and let him know where we are so when he comes back we won’t be speculating, we need to have that in hand and saying this is where we are. So we need to schedule a meeting prior to that in some form or fashion whether we put it on the Commission agenda or what have you for those resources come from in-house whether it’s employees or whether from the government itself so that’s more of a personal in-house decision. Mr. Mayor: Yeah, it is and I think what Rocky’s saying is that just from a practical standpoint what GMA will have to do is take this document, they’ll have to amend it then they’ll have to transmit it back to us. We will subsequently have to adopt this as well. Mr. Hasan: Right. Mr. Mayor: But the action that needs to take place between now and the end of March is us deciding what that new defined benefit process will be and I think we can do that pretty quickly. Mr. Hasan: Okay. Mr. Mayor: Yeah, based on everything we know we can do that pretty quickly. Mr. Sias: And if we don’t get the waive we have to just schedule a special meeting. Mr. Mayor: Okay all right, we’re going to hear from Public Safety representative at this time. Chief, all right, we’ll let Chief go first and then you’ll, all right Chief James. Chief James: Just wanted to say thank you to the Mayor, Commissioners, and the body for listening to the employees. As we started this out we scheduled meetings with all of the Commissioners and the Mayor with the Administrator and I think this is one of the most supportive things we could ever do for the employees. I think as a, as we talk about retention, I think this will be one of the number one things that could be done for retention. Once an employee has worked those ten or fifteen years what would stop them from going to another agency would be that they have an outstanding pension to work for. We’ve seen that same method used in the military and other places, once they’ve worked ten years then they’re going to stay because they get a life-long pension once they hit 20 years. So I think that this is an outstanding move for the employees for 14 morale of the employees and I do want to say thank you and applaud you for that. I think as we work through this numbers have went from 2 ½ to 2. I think that all of the employees that I’ve talked with at the 2.00% number is fine. All the employees that I’ve talked to have agreed with also increasing their own personal input to assist in getting this type of retirement. It will do great for Public Safety as well as the regular employees so again I’d just like to say thank you for looking out for the employees. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Chief, we appreciate your service as well. All right. Mr. Tomaszewski: I agree with everything that Chief James already said and I too thank you. If you don’t mind, I do have just a couple of questions. For Mr. Rocky if you don’t mind for clarity’s sake and so that we can answer to people who are undoubtedly going to ask with an st effective date of July 1 if an employee was to put in their paperwork and have an effective nd, retirement date of July 2 would they enjoy this benefit increase? Mr. Joyner: That is a, I’ll call it a detail so we’ll have to work through the attorneys and then the Commissioners to eventually see. Normally what we’ve done in changes like this where you’ve increased the multiplier and had an employee contribution you might require a minimum two or three months of contributions coming in before you allow them to retire. Now a requirement doesn’t affect the liability at all it just, I don’t I mean if you all decide that’s what you want to do whether the person’s made any contributions or not just after the date they retire then that can be worked into the amendment and done. That’s more of an internal decision and it’s more of a just policy decision than it is, it’s not a numbers decision. It’s not a liability decision, it’s a policy decision. Mr. Tomaszewski: Okay and secondly I wanted to point out that we did as a group have a open to all employees frankly open to everybody meeting that was scheduled several weeks in th advance for the 6 of this month I believe it was and it was scheduled at one of the local churches. I unfortunately was not able to make it myself but from what I was told from the folks that were there every comment was positive. There was no feedback resisting increasing our own contribution. And hopefully this makes sense but just quickly doing the math even at the 2.25% level of contribution increase that is an Annual Rate of Return on investment of 49.7%. I mean personally I’m crazy enough that I do penny stocks but the best I’ve ever done is 25% so I mean really 49.7% Annual Rate of Return is fantastic. And you know kind of being a numbers guy of course not as awesome with it as Mr. Rocky that’s pretty much how I break down whether or not I can justify paying more. And I think when the employees look at it, the Rate of Return is definitely worth the investment. So thank you very much and thank you for your time and all the work that you’ve done and listening to us and working on this (inaudible). Mr. Mayor: All right, thank you. Okay all right, so all right, let’s come back for a couple th of things. Our next meeting, Ms. Bonner, then will be on March the 6 at a time to be determined. th All right, so meeting March 6 we’re going to look at two examples Line 3 and Line 4 and a combination that gets us to a sweet spot. All right, so do we have general consensus on those things? Mr. Frantom: So moved. 15 Ms. Davis: Second. th Mr. Mayor: All right, the Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 4. Mr. Sias: I was hoping that I might could’ve squeezed in that motion at what point will we th get the information to be prepared for the meeting on the 6. Can we set a time to receive that, th those feedback numbers, so we’re not all looking at it on the 6? We really need to get it. nd, Ms. Jackson: I’d like to say is this Friday, March 2 sufficient? That would be the Friday before the Tuesday meeting. Ms. Davis: Yeah, that’s good. Mr. Mayor: That’s fine. Mr. Sias: I’m looking at my calendar here. I’m trying to get an answer to that question. Yes, that’ll be sufficient. Ms. Davis: No, just as information. Ms. Jackson: Just to send the information out. Mr. Sias: I think that will be sufficient. th Mr. Mayor: All right, so we’ve got a motion and a proper second meeting March 6, and we will then decide on what the new amendments to the retirement plan will be at that time and take it before the full Commission for adoption, okay? All right, all those in favor will vote yea and those opposed will vote no. Ms. Jackson, do you have anything else? Ms. Jackson: No, I have no other items. Mr. Mayor: Okay, Ms. Bonner, any other business before us? The Clerk: No, sir, that’s it. Mr. Mayor: All right, this meeting is adjourned. \[MEETING ADJOURNED\] Lena Bonner Clerk of Commission 16