[Ad Hoc Committee on Pensions on January 11, 2024.]
[00:00:03]
WE CALL THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON PENSION TO ORDER.
UH, FIRST ITEM ON AGENDA, THE APPROVE OF THE MINUTES.
AND OPPOSED A ASK CARRIED FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA.
THE DOLLAR POLICE AND FIRE PENSION SYSTEM.
EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FUND OF THE CITY.
I THINK THAT JACK ALLEN IS DOING THIS.
I, I SAW JACK A FEW SECONDS AGO.
JACK IRELAND, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER FOR THE CITY.
FIRST, I'D LIKE TO APOLOGIZE FOR THE LATE, UH, DELIVERY OF THE MATERIALS TO THE COMMITTEE.
I KNOW IT DIDN'T GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW OR HAVE MUCH TIME TO REVIEW, SO I DO APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.
BUT WITH THAT BEING SAID, UH, WE WILL WALK THROUGH THE PRESENTATION THAT WE PREPARED FOR TODAY.
ON SLIDE TWO, I JUST OUTLINED, UM, THE THINGS THAT HAVE, WE'VE INCLUDED IN THIS PRESENTATION, UH, A PURPOSE OF THE DISCUSSION, UH, SOME BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND, UH, OTHER MATERIAL RELATED TO THE DALLAS POLICE AND FIRE PENSION SYSTEM.
THIRD, THE EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FUND.
FOURTH, A STAFF RECOMMENDATION REGARDING A PRELIMINARY FRAMEWORK.
AND THEN OUR NEXT STEPS AND TIMELINE.
A LOT OF THIS IS INFORMATION THE COMMITTEE HAS SEEN BEFORE, BECAUSE Y'ALL HAVE BEEN WORKING SINCE SEPTEMBER.
SO YOU HAD SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER, NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER WHERE YOU'VE BEEN PRESENTED A LOT OF INFORMATION.
AND SO MY EFFORT TODAY WAS TO TRY TO BRING A LOT OF THAT TOGETHER FOR YOU, UH, TO RECAP IT AS WELL AS THEN TO GIVE YOU A STAFF, UH, RESPONSE TO WHAT WE'VE HEARD, BECAUSE THUS FAR WHAT YOU'VE HEARD FROM, UM, CHIRON IS AN INDEPENDENT ACTUARY.
THEY DID THEIR WORK AND THEY MADE THEIR PRESENTATION INDEPENDENT OF THE CITY, INDEPENDENT OF THE POLICE AND FIRE PENSION FUND.
THE SAME WITH THE, UH, STUDY GROUP.
THEY WERE, UH, ASKED TO PREPARE INFORMATION AND SUBMIT IT TO THE COMMITTEE.
AND APART FROM WORKING WITH THE POLICE AND FIRE PENSION FUND, CITY STAFF WERE ABLE TO GIVE SOME, UH, SUGGESTIONS TO THEM.
BUT, UH, A LOT OF WHAT YOU'VE HEARD IS NOT HEARD FROM CITY STAFF AT THIS POINT.
AND SO THAT'S, UH, OUR INTENT TODAY IS TO, TO RECAP WHAT YOU'VE HEARD AND THEN GIVE YOU A CITY STAFF RESPONSE.
SO ON SLIDE FOUR, THE PURPOSE OF OUR DISCUSSION, AGAIN, WE HAVE TWO PRIMARY, UH, DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLANS, THE POLICE AND FIRE PENSION SYSTEM, UH, FOR UNIFORM EMPLOYEES, AND THE EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FUND FOR CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES.
UH, TEXAS PENSION REVIEW BOARD, UH, IS MANDATED TO OVERSEE ALL, UH, PUBLIC RETIREMENT SYSTEMS. SO WHAT WE'VE LAID OUT IS BASED ON CONVERSATIONS THAT, UH, OUR CITY ATTORNEY, TAMMY PALINO, AND MYSELF HAVE HAD WITH STAFF OF THE PENSION REVIEW BOARD AS FAR AS WHAT THE EXPECTATIONS ARE, WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS ARE.
I BELIEVE THERE ARE SOME INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE SOME DIFFERING OPINIONS ABOUT WHAT IS REQUIRED.
BUT THIS IS BASED UPON, UH, MS. PALOMINO AND I, UH, TALKING TO THE PENSION REVIEW BOARD.
AND SO THAT'S WHAT I'M GOING TO LAY OUT TODAY AS I WALK THROUGH THIS.
UM, THE PENSION REVIEW BOARD HAS GUIDELINES, FUNDING GUIDELINES THAT REQUIRE, UH, THE PENSION SYSTEMS TO HAVE FULL FUNDING WITHIN A 30 YEAR PERIOD.
UH, NEITHER OF OUR TWO PLANS, UH, COMPLY WITH THAT.
ON SLIDE FIVE, UH, THE, UH, DALLAS POLICE AND FIRE, UH, PENSION SYSTEM IS PROJECTED TO BE FULLY FUNDED IN 68 YEARS IN EXCESS OF THE 30 YEARS THAT'S REQUIRED BY PRB.
AND THE EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FUND IS PROJECTED TO BE FULLY FUNDED, UH, IN 51 YEARS.
AGAIN, THAT'S IN EXCESS OF WHAT IS REQUIRED BY THE PRBS 30 YEARS.
UH, IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING IN TALKING TO THE PENSION REVIEW BOARD, THAT THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE PUBLIC RETIREMENT SYSTEM OR THE BOARD, ALONG WITH THE, UH, GOVERNMENT ENTITY IN THIS CASE, THE SPONSOR OR THE CITY, ARE REQUIRED TO FORMULATE A FUNDING SOUNDNESS RESTORATION PLAN TO COMPLY WITH THIS 30 YEAR AMORTIZATION REQUIREMENTS AND SUBMIT THOSE TO THE STATE, UH, PENSION REVIEW BOARD BY SEPTEMBER 1ST, 2025.
I'VE ASKED STRICT THAT AND THEN EXPLAINED IT ON PAGE SIX BECAUSE THE POLICE AND FIRE PENSION SYSTEM, BECAUSE OF THE ADDITIONAL CHALLENGES THAT THEY WERE FACING
[00:05:01]
AND, UH, CAME UNDER SOME ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO HOUSE BILL 31 58 AND 2017, THERE IS SOME ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS THAT THEY HAVE TO MEET, UH, AND SUBMIT, UH, A PLAN THAT IS APPROVED BY THEIR BOARD IN NOVEMBER, BY NOVEMBER 1ST OF 24.UH, SO WE, OUR GOAL IS TO WORK IN COOPERATION WITH BOTH BOARDS OR BOTH FUNDS AND THEIR STAFF, OTHER STAKEHOLDERS PUT THE PLANS TOGETHER, PRESENT THEM TO CITY COUNCIL.
THEY WILL BE PRESENTED TO THEIR BOARDS AS WELL.
I'M HOPING THAT WE CAN DO THAT IN A COLLABORATIVE WAY, AND I WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE FOR US TO BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE SUBMITTING THINGS TO THE STATE PENSION REVIEW BOARD, UH, IN AUGUST OR SEPTEMBER OF THIS YEAR, UH, WHICH WOULD BE IN ADVANCE OF, UH, HOUSE BILL 31 58 REQUIREMENTS AND A FULL YEAR IN ADVANCE OF THE, UM, FUNDING SOUNDNESS RESTORATION PLAN REQUIREMENTS.
UH, I'VE JUST NOTED ON SLIDE SEVEN, UH, AND I, I LIKE TO REITERATE THIS, UH, THAT THE CITY IS FULLY COMMITTED TO ENSURING THAT THE FUNDING SOUNDNESS OF BOTH PLANS AND PROTECTION OF THE PENSION BENEFITS FOR ALL OF OUR EMPLOYEES AND RETIREES.
AND THAT IS A DRIVING, UH, PRINCIPLE THAT WE ARE WORKING UNDER.
SO, MOVING ON TO POLICE AND FIRE PENSION SYSTEM.
JUST A FEW FACTS, AGAIN, THE SYSTEM WAS, UH, ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE IN 1916.
IT'S NOW GOVERNED BY, UH, STATE STATUTE.
THERE'S, UH, 5,085 ACTIVE EMPLOYEES IN, UH, THAT ARE MEMBERS OF THE PLAN.
AND THEN THERE'S, UH, 5,289, UH, RETIREES OR BENEFICIARIES OF THE PLAN.
ON SLIDE 10, UH, SOME HISTORY ON THE, UH, FUNDING, UH, AND WHERE THEY, UH, WERE EACH YEAR REGARDING HOW MANY YEARS IT WOULD TAKE TO BE FULLY FUNDED.
AND YOU CAN SEE ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE, UH, FOR FISCAL YEAR 22, THEY'RE 68 YEARS AWAY FROM BEING FULLY FUNDED, UH, BACK IN 2007.
WE'RE ONLY 15 YEARS AWAY FROM BEING FULLY FUNDED.
SO YOU CAN SEE HOW THAT HAS CHANGED OVER THE YEARS.
AND AGAIN, BECAUSE OF OUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT'S REQUIRED, UH, BY THE PENSION REVIEW BOARD, PLANS ARE REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED ON SLIDE 11.
UH, WE'VE GIVEN INFORMATION ABOUT THE, UH, VALUE OF ASSETS AND THE ACCRUED LIABILITY EACH YEAR, AND A COMPARISON ALSO TO THAT, THE FUNDED PERCENT.
UM, AND YOU WILL SEE THAT FOR POLICE AND FIRE PENSION, UH, THE BLACK LINE DROPS FROM 2014 WHEN THE FUND WAS, UH, FUNDED AT 75.6%.
IT DROPPED WITHIN TWO YEARS TO BEING, UH, 45% FUNDED.
AND SO WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT BEFORE.
AND ON SLIDE 12, UH, SOME OF THE INFORMATION THAT WAS SHARED BY THE STUDY GROUP THAT HAS LOOKED AT THIS IN MORE DETAIL, UH, THAT A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT CAUSED, UH, THIS ISSUE.
UH, UH, ONE OF, CAN YOU PAUSE JUST A LITTLE BIT? YOU'RE GOING A LITTLE BIT TOO FAST.
UH, SO ON SLIDE 1212, PARDON ME, CHAIR, CAN I JUST ASK FOR LIKE TWO MINUTES TO JUST CATCH UP ON SLIDES? LIKE I HAVEN'T EVEN READ ALL THE SLIDES YOU'RE RUNNING THROUGH.
YOU'RE ON 12 AND I'M STILL BACK ON FIVE.
IF YOU COULD JUST, MAYBE, CAN WE DO LIKE TWO MINUTES OF SILENCE SO I COULD READ THE REST OF THESE SLIDES? YES, NO PROBLEM.
JUST TWO, TWO MINUTES RESET SO SHE CAN'T CATCH UP.
[00:11:30]
OKAY.WE RESUME IN THE A HOC COMMITTEE PENSION.
SO, UM, WE'LL JUST MOVING TO SLIDE 12 TO, UM, REMIND THE COMMITTEE OF THINGS THAT WE SAW FROM, UH, THE STUDY GROUP.
I BELIEVE THIS WAS INCLUDED IN THEIR PRESENTATION LAST MONTH, UH, ASKING THE QUESTION, WHAT CAUSED THE FUNDING CHALLENGE OF THE DALLAS POLICE AND FIRE PENSION SYSTEM? AND THEY BOILED IT DOWN TO TWO PRIMARY BULLETS.
THE POOR REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS THAT OCCURRED AND THE RESULTING LOSSES RELATED TO THAT.
AND THEN THE DROP STRUCTURE THAT WAS PUT IN PLACE WHERE, UH, THERE WAS PARTICIPATION AND DROP THAT HAD GUARANTEED RATES OF RETURN.
UH, THERE WAS CONCERN THAT INDIVIDUALS WEREN'T GONNA BE ABLE TO TAKE THEIR, UH, GET THEIR MONEY.
SO THERE WAS A RUN ON THE BANK, IF YOU WILL.
AND SO A LOT OF ASSETS WERE TAKEN OUT OF THE SYSTEM.
SO THOSE TWO THINGS TOGETHER WAS, UH, PART OF THE REASON, PART OF THE PRIMARY REASON THAT THE, THE FUNDING PERCENT, UH, CHANGED.
SO MOVING ON TO SLIDE 13, UH, IN RESPONSE TO THOSE CHALLENGES, UM, WITH THE FUNDING STATE, UH, STATE LEGISLATURE PASSED HOUSE BILL 31, 58 AND 2017, THAT DID NOT FIX EVERYTHING.
IT PUT IN SOME STOPGAP MEASURES, IT CHANGED GOVERNANCE, UH, CHANGED THE BOARD MAKEUP.
THERE WERE CHANGES IN, UH, REGARDS TO THE CITY CONTRIBUTION.
THERE WAS A FLOOR PUT IN PLACE SO THAT, UH, EVEN IF OUR CALCULATED, UH, CONTRIBUTION WASN'T ENOUGH, THERE WAS A FLOOR THAT WE HAD TO MAKE IN OUR CONTRIBUTIONS INTO THE FUND.
FUTURE BENEFITS WERE REDUCED FOR ACTIVE EMPLOYEES, RETIREES, AND BENEFICIARIES.
AND THE EFFORTS THAT WERE MADE AT THAT TIME, UH, IN RESULTED IN, UH, REDUCING THE UNFUNDED LIABILITY BY ABOUT A BILLION DOLLARS.
AND IT DID IMPROVE THE FUNDING RATIO AT THAT TIME.
BUT AGAIN, IT WAS KNOWN THAT THAT WAS A, UH, NEAR TERM, UH, EFFORT.
AND THAT, UH, PRIOR TO 2025, THAT ADDITIONAL WORK WOULD BE NEEDED AND AN ADDITIONAL PLAN WOULD NEED TO BE SUBMITTED.
ON SLIDE 14 AND 15, UH, THIS INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED BY, UH, UH, KELLY, UH, A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO.
I BELIEVE THIS, THIS SHOWS THE CHANGES IN BENEFITS FOR EMPLOYEES THAT WERE, UH, PART OF THE PLAN PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 1ST, 2017, AND THE CHANGE TO AFTER, UH, AUGUST 31ST, 2017.
AGAIN, THIS WAS IN BRIEFINGS PREVIOUSLY, AND I JUST BROUGHT IT FORWARD TO KEEP IT, UH, IN FRONT OF YOU ON SLIDE 16.
AGAIN, AS I JUST STATED, THERE WAS THE, THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT, UH, THE CHANGES WERE FOR THE NEAR TERM AND THAT THERE WOULD BE A REQUIREMENT THAT A NEW PLAN WOULD BE SUBMITTED BY NOVEMBER 1ST OF 24.
THIS PLAN HAS TO BE APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF THE PENSION SYSTEM AND SUBMITTED TO THE STATE, ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS WAS TO HIRE AN INDEPENDENT ACTUARY.
SO CHIRON WAS SELECTED BY THE PENSION REVIEW BOARD AND IS NOW UNDER CONTRACT WITH THE POLICE AND FIRE PENSION FUND.
AND THEY'RE SERVING AS THE, UH, INDEPENDENT ACTUARY.
UH, THEIR FINAL REPORT IS DUE TO THE PENSION REVIEW BOARD NO LATER THAN OCTOBER 1ST OF 24.
THEY BRIEFED THIS COMMITTEE, UH, I BELIEVE IT WAS IN NOVEMBER.
[00:15:01]
BULLETS IN THIS PRESENTATION THAT SUMMARIZES WHAT THEY, UH, TALKED TO THIS COMMITTEE ABOUT IN NOVEMBER.THIS WAS BASED ON THEIR PRELIMINARY REVIEW.
THEY HAVE A FINAL REPORT THAT WILL BE, UH, DUE.
AND INITIALLY I HAD UNDERSTOOD THAT IT WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR THIS COMMITTEE IN FEBRUARY.
IT MAY BE A LITTLE LATER THAN THAT.
IT MAY BE MARCH BEFORE WE HEAR THE FINAL REPORT FROM CHIRON.
BUT CHIRON, AGAIN, BEING THE INDEPENDENT ACTUARY THAT WAS HIRED, UH, TO, UH, LOOK AT GETTING THE FUND INTO A 30 YEAR, UH, AMORTIZATION.
SO, UH, PART OF WHAT THEY DISCUSSED IN THEIR PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS WAS THE NEED TO MOVE TO AN ACTUARILY DETERMINED CONTRIBUTION RATE.
UH, IN 2017, THE STATE PUT IN PLACE A FIXED CONTRIBUTION RATE.
WE HAVE FOLLOWED THE FIXED CONTRIBUTION RATE THAT WAS PUT IN PLACE IN BY THE STATE AND AGREED TO AT THE TIME.
UH, BUT CHIRON IS RECOMMENDING THAT WE MOVE TO AN ACTUARILY DETERMINED CONTRIBUTION RATE.
CHIRON ALSO SUGGESTED THAT THE MEMBER CONTRIBUTION RATE SHOULD NOT BE INCREASED.
AND REGARDING BENEFITS, UH, THEY DID NOT RECOMMEND ANY CHANGES TO THE BENEFIT MULTIPLIER OR THE RETIREMENT AGE.
AND CURRENTLY THE REQUIREMENT IS FOR THE, UH, PLAN TO BE 70% FUNDED BEFORE, UH, RETIREES ARE ABLE TO GET A COLA.
AND CHIRON SPENT A LOT OF EFFORT, UH, TALKING ABOUT HOW TO MOVE THAT FORWARD.
ON SLIDE 17, THERE ARE A COUPLE OF CHARTS THAT I PULLED OUT OF THE CHIRON PRESENTATION JUST SHOWING, UH, HOW OUR, UH, CONTRIBUTIONS WOULD NEED TO INCREASE TO MEET THE, UH, THE PLAN THAT CHIRON PUT TOGETHER BASED ON THEIR PRELIMINARY REVIEW.
YOU CAN SEE WHERE WE ARE CURRENTLY, OUR CURRENT TRAJECTORY ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE VERSUS WHERE YOU WOULD SEE US BEING ABLE TO, OR NEEDING TO INCREASE OUR CONTRIBUTIONS OVER TIME.
UH, AND THEY DID PHASE IT UP IN THE FIRST, UH, FIVE YEARS, AND THEY DID PHASE IT DOWN IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS.
ON SLIDE 18, UH, THIS IS NEW INFORMATION TO THE COMMITTEE.
IT'S BASICALLY STAFF'S, UH, THOUGHTS REGARDING CHIRON'S RECOMMENDATION.
WE WORKED WITH OUR CON, UH, IN CONSULTATION WITH OUR ACTUARY DELOITTE, AND LISTED OUT FOUR CONCERNS THAT WE HAD THAT WE'RE VOICING THOSE CONCERNS TO CHIRON FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION AS THEY FINALIZE THEIR FINAL REPORT AND RESUBMIT IT TO THE BOARD, UH, WITHIN THE COMING MONTHS.
UH, WE REALLY APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT CHIRON RECOMMENDED A PHASE UP OVER THE, UH, FIRST FIVE YEARS, WHICH WOULD ALLOW US TO BETTER MANAGE THAT, UH, GROWTH IN OUR CONTRIBUTION RATE.
HOWEVER, WE DID NOT AGREE WITH IT PHASING DOWN ON THE BACK END.
WE DID NOT SEE THAT AS SOMETHING THAT WAS NECESSARY.
AN INCREASE IN BENEFITS INCREASES THE LONG-TERM LIABILITY.
IT INCREASES THE COST, IT MAKES IT HARDER TO ACHIEVE THE 30 YEAR FUNDING REQUIREMENT.
UH, SO THAT IS A, UH, AN OBSERVATION THAT WE AGAIN, HAVE ALREADY SHARED AND WILL AGAIN SHARE WITH CHIRON.
CHIRON ALSO USED A 2.5% GROWTH IN PAYROLL FACTOR.
UH, WE BELIEVE THAT THAT, UH, DOESN'T FULLY RECOGNIZE THE FACT THAT OUR, UH, PAYROLL IS GROWING FASTER THAN THAT, UH, DUE TO MEET AND CONFER IN THE CURRENT YEAR, UH, BECAUSE OF MEET AND CONFER, THE PAY INCREASE FOR POLICE AND FIRE WAS OVER 5% AND WE WOULD LIKE FOR THAT TO BE RECOGNIZED IN THE WORK AS CHIRON IS, IS LOOKING.
AND THEN ALSO LASTLY, THE UM, DISCOUNT RATE THAT CHIRON USES.
UH, WE FELT LIKE IT WAS ON THE CONSERVATIVE END OF WHAT SEGAL, UH, HAD CONSIDERED IN THEIR 2020 EXPERIENCE STUDY AND WANT TO ASK ABOUT THE OPPORTUNITY TO, TO MAKE AN ADJUSTMENT TO THAT OR AT LEAST, UM, SEE WHAT THAT CHANGE WOULD MAKE AND WHETHER THAT'S, UH, APPROPRIATE OR NOT.
ON SLIDE 19, AFTER THIS COMMITTEE HEARD FROM CHIRON, I BELIEVE IT WAS THE NEXT MONTH AFTER THAT, Y'ALL HEARD FROM A STUDY GROUP, A STUDY GROUP, AGAIN, THAT WAS NOT, UH, ENGAGED WITH POLICE AND FIRE PENSION FUND.
THE MAYOR HAD ASKED SOME INDIVIDUALS TO, WITH EXPERTISE TO WORK ON THIS AND, AND THEY'VE SPENT A LOT OF TIME, UH, DOING RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS.
AND THEY BROUGHT TO THE COMMITTEE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS LAST MONTH, AND BASICALLY A THREE-PART RECOMMENDATION THAT THEY SHARED WITH YOU A MONTH AGO, WHICH WAS, UH, FARTHER TO BE INCREASE IN CITY CONTRIBUTIONS.
AND SO THEY PROPOSED A STAIR STEP UP OF $20 MILLION, OUR CURRENT CONTRIBUTION, UH, BUT STEPPING UP A FIXED AMOUNT OF $20 MILLION IN FISCAL YEAR, UH, 25, INCREASING THAT ANOTHER 20 TO A TOTAL OF 40 AND 26,
[00:20:01]
AND INCREASING THAT ANOTHER $20 MILLION TO $60 MILLION IN FISCAL YEAR 27.SO THAT WOULD BE THREE YEARS OF PUTTING ADDITIONAL MONEY INTO THE FUND.
THEY, UH, AGREED WITH CHIRON THAT WE DO NEED TO MOVE TOWARDS A, UH, ACTUARILY DETERMINED CONTRIBUTION RATE, UH, AND THAT THAT WOULD BE USED OVER TIME.
THEY, UH, DO SUGGEST THAT WE, UH, PUT IN PLACE SOME TYPE OF GUARDRAILS TO PROTECT US IN CASE, UH, THE ACTUARILY DETERMINED CONTRIBUTION RATE SHOT UP, UH, TO A LEVEL THAT WE COULDN'T MANAGE WITHIN OUR BUDGET.
MAYBE WE'VE, UH, IDENTIFY A SMOOTHING PROCESS OF HOW WE WOULD IMPLEMENT THOSE LARGER, UH, INCREASES OVER MULTIPLE YEARS RATHER THAN JUST ONE YEAR, UH, IMPACT.
AND LASTLY, UH, THE STUDY GROUP INDICATED THAT, UH, THE COLA SHOULD, UH, CONTINUE TO BE PROVIDED, UH, ONCE, UH, THE FUND IS AT 70% FUNDING, WHICH IS THE WAY IT IS NOW, AND NOT CHANGE THAT.
HOWEVER, CHIRON, AGAIN HAD ADJUSTED SOME CHANGES TO THAT.
AND THE LAST THING ON PAGE 20 THAT THE STUDY GROUP IDENTIFIED WAS, UH, THE OPPORTUNITY FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING BY MONETIZING CITY ASSETS.
THEY HIGHLY RECOMMEND THAT WE LOOK AT ALL OF OUR CITY ASSETS, IDENTIFY IF THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO MONETIZE THOSE IN SOME WAY, WHETHER THAT IS A LONG-TERM LEASE, UH, PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP SELL AS SURPLUS PROPERTY AND TAKING THOSE, UH, PROCEEDS AND HAVING A CASH INFUSION INTO THE POLICE AND FIRE PENSION FUND.
WHEN YOU DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT, YOU'RE PUTTING A LOT OF MONEY IN AT ONE TIME, WHICH WOULD LOWER THE ACTUARILY DETERMINED CONTRIBUTION RATE IN THE FUTURE YEARS AND WOULD LOWER THE FUTURE, UH, AMOUNTS.
SO ON SLIDE 21, AGAIN FROM THE STUDY GROUP'S PRESENTATION LAST MONTH, THEY SHARED WITH YOU WHAT OUR CURRENT CONTRIBUTION WOULD LOOK LIKE, UH, THE DARK BARS ON EACH YEAR, AND THEN LAYERING ON TOP OF THAT, UH, STEPPING UP 20, 40, $60 MILLION AND THEN USING AN A DC FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE 30 YEARS.
NOW, WHAT THEY WANTED TO COMPARE THAT TO IS ON SLIDE 22.
SO LOOKING ON SLIDE 22, THESE ARE THE INCREASED AMOUNTS THAT WE WOULD NEED TO BE PUTTING INTO THE FUND.
SO ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE, YOU SEE THE 20 MILLION, THE 40 MILLION, THE 60 MILLION.
THAT HELPS US STAIR STEP UP OR PHASE INTO, RATHER THAN JUST JUMPING TO A $75 MILLION INCREASE IN ONE YEAR.
THIS ALLOWS US TO PHASE UP TO THAT AND THEN USE THE A DC FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE 30 YEAR PERIOD.
ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE, YOU WILL SEE IF IN 2028 THERE WAS $500 MILLION AVAILABLE FOR A CASH INFUSION INTO THE FUND, WHAT WOULD IT DO TO OUR FUTURE, UH, CONTRIBUTION RATES ON AN ANNUAL BASIS? AND YOU CAN SEE HOW IT DIFFERS FROM THE LEFT-HAND SIDE.
IF WE HAD $500 MILLION, UH, DEPOSITED WITHIN THE FUND IN 2028, UH, WE WOULD NOT SEE THE HIGH INCREASES TO THE ANNUAL CONTRIBUTION RATES.
AS YOU SEE ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE, UH, I ONLY PULLED THE $500 MILLION EXAMPLE.
IF YOU GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE BRIEFING, UH, UH, LAST MONTH THEY HAD A 500, A 1000000001.5, AND I BELIEVE THEY EVEN HAD A $2 BILLION, UM, UH, EXAMPLE SHOWING WHAT WOULD HAPPEN.
SO THAT IS WORK THAT HAS BEEN DONE THUS FAR ON THE DALLAS POLICE AND FIRE PENSION SYSTEM.
AGAIN, CHIRON DID THEIR WORK, THE STUDY GROUP DID THEIR WORK.
NOW SHIFTING TO THE EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FUND, UH, ON SLIDE 24, JUST A FACT PAGE, UH, THIS FUND WAS ESTABLISHED IN 1944 GOVERNED BY CHAPTER 40 A IN THE DALLAS CITY COLD.
THERE'S CURRENTLY 7,464 ACTIVE EMPLOYEES THAT ARE IN THE PLAN.
AND THERE'S 7,766 EMPLOYEE OR RETIREES OR BENEFICIARIES OF THE PLAN.
ON SLIDE 25, THE SAME AS I SHOWED YOU SOME HISTORICAL ON POLICE AND FIRE, THIS IS HISTORICAL ON THE EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FUND.
JACK, YOU SLOW DOWN JUST A LITTLE BIT.
YES, SLOW DOWN JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE.
ON SLIDE 25, UM, AGAIN, LIKE I SHOWED REGARDING POLICE AND FIRE, THIS IS, UH, HISTORICAL FOR EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FUND.
OUR CIVILIAN FUND GOING BACK TO 2012 THROUGH 2022.
IN 2022, WE ARE 51 YEARS TO BE FULLY FUNDED.
THAT 51 YEARS MORE THAN THE 30 YEAR REQUIRE BY THE PENSION REVIEW BOARD TRIGGERING A NEED FOR A FUND, UH, FUNDING SOUNDNESS RESTORATION PLAN.
ON SLIDE 26, SIMILAR TO WHAT I SHOWED ON POLICE AND FIRE, HERE'S SOME HISTORICAL AND EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FUND SHOWING THE VALUE OF ASSETS EACH YEAR COMPARED TO THE ACCRUED LIABILITY FOR THAT YEAR.
[00:25:01]
LINE, UH, BAR ACROSS THE PAGE SHOWING THE FUNDED PERCENTAGE.SO THE EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FUND WAS ACTUALLY, IF YOU LOOK AT THE PEAK OF THAT BLACK LINE THAT RUNS ACROSS, ACROSS THE PAGE, THERE WERE A FEW YEARS THAT WE WERE ABOVE THE 100% FUNDING LEVEL AND IT DROPPED DOWN AND IS NOW AT 73.3% FUNDED IN, IN CONVERSATION WITH MS. AUSTIN FROM THE EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FUND.
SHE SUBMITTED THIS PRE THIS NEXT SLIDE, UH, WHEN SHE PRESENTED TO THE COMMITTEE, UH, AND TALKED ABOUT ONE OF THE PRIMARY THINGS THAT HAS CAUSED, UH, THE, THE FINANCIAL CONDITION WITHIN EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FUND HAS BEEN THE, UH, ACTUAL PAYROLL GROWTH COMPARED TO WHAT HAD BEEN PROJECTED.
AND SO, AGAIN, THIS IS NOT JUST A CHANGE IN THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES, BUT IT'S A CHANGE IN THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES AND INCREASES IN IN COMPENSATION.
UH, WE ARE CURRENTLY 907 EMPLOYEES LESS, OR 11% LESS THAN WE WERE IN 2008.
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SLIDE 27.
COULD WE GET SLIDE 7 27? THANK YOU.
I'LL TRY TO KEEP US ON THE RECORD.
SO IF, IF I MAY MOVE TO SLIDE 28, AGAIN, THIS WAS INFORMATION THAT CHERYL PROVIDED THAT SHOWED THAT SOME CHANGES WERE PUT IN PLACE IN, UH, EFFECTIVE, UH, AT THE END OF UH, 2016.
AGAIN, IN AN EFFORT TO IMPROVE THE FUNDING CONDITION, THE CHANGES WERE MADE TO BENEFITS AND RESULTED IN ABOUT $2 BILLION OF SAVINGS THROUGH, UH, 2055 AND LISTED.
THERE ARE A FEW OF THE EXAMPLES OF THE CHANGES THAT WERE MADE TO BENEFITS AND 29, AGAIN, CHERYL SUBMITTED THIS AND PRESENTED IT TO YOU A FEW MONTHS AGO IN THE SAME COMMITTEE, COMPARING THE BENEFITS OF TIER A AND TIER B, TIER B BEING THOSE EMPLOYEES THAT ARE HIRED AFTER DECEMBER 31ST, 2016, A COUPLE OF THE, THE MAJOR CHANGES WAS THE MULTIPLIER CHANGE FROM 2.75 TO 2.5.
UH, THE SERVICE, UH, RETIREMENT ELIGIBILITY CHANGED.
UH, WE WENT FROM A RULE OF 78 TO A RULE OF 80.
UH, THE CALCULATION HAD BEEN FOR TIER A, UH, YOUR BEST OF THREE YEARS.
THAT CHANGED TO A BEST OF FIVE YEARS.
SO THERE WERE CHANGES IN THE BENEFITS.
AGAIN, THIS WAS A SLIDE THAT WAS PROVIDED BY CHERYL A FEW MONTHS AGO.
LOOKING FORWARD, CHERYL PROVIDED THIS.
NOW KNOWING THAT WE, WE AGAIN HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE PENSION REVIEW BOARD, IT HAS BEEN TRIGGERED BECAUSE WE EXCEED THE 30 YEAR FUNDING.
UH, A FUNDING SOUNDNESS RESTORATION PLAN IS REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE PENSION REVIEW BOARD BY SEPTEMBER 1ST OF 25.
UH, MS. PALOMINO AND I HAD CONVERSATION WITH PENSION REVIEW BOARD STAFF, AND YES, THEY ENCOURAGE YOU SUBMIT THOSE PLANS EARLY.
A FULL YEAR EARLY IS FULLY ACCEPTABLE.
THE SOONER YOU DO THAT, THEN UH, THEN THAT WILL BE APPRECIATED BY THE PRB AND, UH, CHANGES CAN GO INTO EFFECT.
SO SOME OF THE THINGS THAT CHERYL TALKED ABOUT, UH, WAS ELIMINATING THE MAXIMUM CONTRIBUTION CAP OF 36%.
UH, THAT IS CURRENTLY OUTLINED IN CHAPTER 40 A, UH, CHERYL TALKED ABOUT PHASING IN CITY CONTRIBUTION INCREASES OVER A FIVE YEAR PERIOD, UH, AND GOING TO AN ACTUARILY DETERMINED CONTRIBUTION RATE.
UH, ALSO WAS RECOMMENDED THAT WE INCREASE THE EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION RATE.
CURRENTLY, THE EMPLOYEES THAT ARE IN THIS PLAN PAY 13.3% OF PAY.
UH, THIS WOULD CAP IT AT A MAXIMUM OF 14% OF PAY.
UH, THEY POINTED OUT, UH, BOTH TIMES THAT THEY PRESENTED TO THE COMMITTEE THAT THEY ARE NOT REQUESTING CONSIDERATION OF PENSION OBLIGATION BONDS.
AND THEY ACKNOWLEDGED, ALTHOUGH THEY DID NOT ASK FOR, THEY ACKNOWLEDGED AT ANY TIME THERE WAS A CASH INFUSION INTO A FUND, IT WOULD IMPROVE THE FUNDING STATUS AND LOWER THE FUTURE YEAR CONTRIBUTIONS.
CHANGES TO THIS FUND DO REQUIRE VOTER APPROVAL AND CHANGES TO, UH, CHAPTER 48.
ON SLIDE 31, AGAIN, FROM CHERYL'S PRESENTATION, UH, I BELIEVE LAST MONTH, UH, SHE SHOWED HOW ON THE TOP OF THE PAGE, HOW WE WOULD STAIR STEP UP OVER THE FIRST FIVE YEARS AT ABOUT 2% INCREASE PER YEAR, AND THEN BE AT THE ACTUARILY DETERMINED CONTRIBUTION RATE.
ON SLIDE FOUR, I'M SORRY, SECTION FOUR.
MOVING ON TO SLIDE 33, WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS WE'VE PUT TOGETHER WHAT WE THINK AS STAFF WOULD BE A STARTING PLACE WITH BOTH FUNDS, WHAT WOULD BE OUR RECOMMENDATION FOR A PRELIMINARY FRAMEWORK.
THERE'S STILL A LOT OF MEAT THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDED HERE, BUT HERE'S SOME HIGH LEVEL THOUGHTS OF WHAT A
[00:30:01]
PLAN COULD, SHOULD LOOK LIKE IN STAFF'S OPINION.AFTER WE'VE HEARD FROM THE OTHER EXPERTS IN THE FIELD, THE INDEPENDENT ACTUARY AND OTHERS, SO FAR, THE DALLAS POLICE AND FIRE, UH, PENSION SYSTEM, WE AGREE THAT THE CITY DOES ABSOLUTELY NEED TO INCREASE OUR CONTRIBUTIONS.
WE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE DO THAT WITH A SET DOLLAR AMOUNT BEING ADDED OVER A THREE TO FIVE YEAR PERIOD.
BUT UNLIKE CHIRON, WE DO NOT SEE THE NEED FOR PHASING THAT DOWN AT THE BACK END OF THE 30 YEARS.
WE ALSO AGREE THAT AFTER THAT INITIAL PHASE UP WITH SOME INITIAL SET DOLLAR AMOUNT INVESTMENTS, THAT WE WOULD MOVE TO AN ACTUARILY DETERMINED CONTRIBUTION FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE 30 YEARS AND BEYOND, INCLUDING HAVING GUARDRAILS IN PLACE TO HELP US MANAGE BUDGET FLUCTUATIONS.
UH, BUT THEN WORKING INTO THE PLAN, UH, SOME TYPE OF SMOOTHING PROCESS SO THAT WE WOULD STILL ACHIEVE FUNDING IN 30 YEARS AND NOT GO BEYOND THAT PERIOD.
WE ALSO AGREE WITH WHAT HAD BEEN SUGGESTED BY THE OTHERS THAT HAD BEEN LOOKING AT THE PLAN, NO CHANGE TO EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR POLICE AND FIRE.
WE ALSO AGREED NO CHANGE TO EMPLOYEE RETIREE BENEFITS, INCLUDING NO ADJUSTMENT TO THE CURRENT GUIDELINE FOR WHEN A COLA IS ELIGIBLE.
THAT DIFFERS FROM CHIRON, BUT IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE STUDY GROUP.
AND, UH, CONSISTENT WITH THE STUDY GROUP, WE BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD EVALUATE, IDENTIFY OPPORTUNITIES WHERE WE COULD POTENTIALLY MONETIZE, UH, SOME ASSETS THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO MAKE A, UH, CASH INFUSION INTO THE FUND THAT WOULD LOWER FUTURE CONTRIBUTIONS, OR IT WOULD ALSO ALLOW US TO REACH THAT 70% FUNDING LEVEL MUCH SOONER, WHICH WOULD THEREFORE TRIGGER THE COLA.
WE RECOGNIZE THAT THE COLA IS IMPORTANT, AND SO OUR WAY OF DOING THAT SOONER IS WE REALLY NEED TO IDENTIFY WAYS TO HAVE A CASH INFUSION TO IMPROVE THE FUNDING STATUS, UH, SO THAT THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD BE TRIGGERED.
UH, CITY STAFF AND THE DALLAS POLICE AND FIRE PENSION.
UH, STAFF HAVE TALKED AND WE ARE COMMITTED TO TRYING TO REACH A MUTUALLY ACCEPTABLE PLAN THAT CAN BE PRESENTED ON SLIDE 34.
AGAIN, SIMILAR FOR EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FUND, LISTENING TO WHAT WE'VE HEARD FROM OTHERS, UH, HAVING CONVERSATION WITH THOSE SAME, UH, UH, LOCAL EXPERTS IN THE FIELD THAT WORKED ON POLICE AND FIRE.
I'VE MET WITH THEM, CHERYL MET WITH THEM.
WE'VE REVIEWED, UH, THE EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FUND WITH THEM.
TAKING THOSE THAT CONSIDERATION INTO, UH, ACCOUNT.
WE'VE RECOMMENDED PRELIMINARY FRAMEWORK FOR ERF.
SO SIMILAR, WE WOULD ELIMINATE THE MAXIMUM CONTRIBUTION CAP THAT'S IN CHAPTER 40 A, WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE CITY TO INCREASE OUR CONTRIBUTIONS.
WE WOULD DO THAT WITH A SET DOLLAR AMOUNT ON THOSE FIRST FEW YEARS, NOT PHASE IT DOWN ON THE OUTER YEARS.
WE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE DO GO TO A, UH, ACTUARILY DETERMINED CONTRIBUTION RATE FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE 30 YEARS AND BEYOND.
UH, UNLIKE POLICE AND FIRE WHERE WE DID NOT RECOMMEND ANY CHANGE TO THE EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTIONS HERE, WE ARE SUGGESTING AN INCREASE, UH, TO THE EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION FROM 13.3% TO 14%, BUT CAPPING THAT TO BE THE MAXIMUM, UH, EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION RATE.
AGAIN, NO CHANGE TO EMPLOYEE OR RETIREE BENEFITS.
UH, AND AGAIN, ALTHOUGH THIS WAS NOT ASKED FOR BY CHERYL, UH, ARE THE FUND IS IF THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY, UH, LOOKING AT WHETHER THERE'S A CASH INFUSION OPPORTUNITY HERE AS WELL.
AND THAT WOULD BE A DA POLICY DECISION BY THIS BODY TO DETERMINE IF YOU WANTED, IF, IF WE DID HAVE FUNDS AVAILABLE.
DOES IT ALL GO INTO POLICE AND FIRE PENSION? IS IT PRO RATA SHARE? HOW, HOW YOU APPROACH THAT, THAT'S A POLICY DECISION.
BUT ANY CASH INFUSION INTO EITHER OF THE FUNDS HELPS THE FUND HELPS THE CITY.
ON SLIDE 36, I KNOW THERE'S BEEN CONVERSATION ABOUT WHETHER WE'RE GOING TO HAVE FOR ERFA MAY ELECTION OR A NOVEMBER ELECTION.
TWO ARE RELATED TO, UH, A SCHEDULE THAT WE WOULD FOLLOW FOR A MAY ELECTION.
TWO PAGES ARE IF WE HAVE A NOVEMBER ELECTION.
SO, UH, THE SLIDES 36 AND 37, UH, IS, IF A DECISION IS MADE FOR A MAY 24 ELECTION, WHAT WOULD BE NECESSARY? WELL, RIGHT NOW WE KNOW THAT THERE'S A SPECIAL CALLED CITY COUNCIL MEETING FOR NEXT FRIDAY, THE 19TH.
WE WOULD PRESENT THESE SAME TYPES OF MATERIALS TO THE FULL CITY COUNCIL, UH, MAKING SOME UPDATES AND ANSWERING SOME OTHER QUESTIONS IN HERE.
BUT THIS WOULD BE THE BASIS FOR THE CONVERSATION ON THE 19TH.
THEN ON JANUARY 31ST, COUNCIL HAS A SPE ANOTHER SPECIAL CALLED CITY COUNCIL MEETING.
AT THAT TIME, AGAIN, ASSUMING WE'RE MOVING TOWARDS A MAY ELECTION, WE WOULD HAVE FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGES TO ERF AT
[00:35:01]
THAT TIME ON JANUARY 31ST.UH, WE WOULD NOT HAVE FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO POLICE AND FIRE PENSION FUND BECAUSE A MAY ELECTION ISN'T NECESSARY ON, UH, ALSO ON SLIDE 36, MY LAST BULLET REGARDING FEBRUARY 14TH, THAT WOULD BE THE DATE THAT WE WOULD NEED TO CALL AN ELECTION FOR MAY 24 FOR ERF IF WE'RE ON THAT PATH.
AT THE SAME TIME, I WOULD OFFER TO YOU MAYBE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR COUNSEL TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION THAT SHOWS YOUR SUPPORT FOR THE POLICE AND FIRE PENSION FUND SO THAT YOU'RE TAKING SOME TYPE OF ACTION AT THE SAME TIME THAT YOU'RE TAKING AN ACTION FOR ERF.
AGAIN, JUST TO ACKNOWLEDGE OUR COMMITMENT THAT WE HAVE A PRELIMINARY FRAMEWORK AND WE'RE WORKING TO A SOLUTION FOR POLICE AND FIRE ON SLIDE 37.
UH, AT THIS POINT, ERF HAS MOVED FORWARD TO A MAY ELECTION, BUT WE WOULD CONTINUE FEBRUARY THROUGH MAY.
WORKING WITH ALL THE STAKEHOLDERS ON POLICE AND FIRE PENSION FUND, WE WOULD HAVE THE ERF ELECTION ON MAY 4TH.
UH, WE WOULD LIKE TO BRING FINAL PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS FOR POLICE AND FIRE ON MAY 15TH.
AND COUNCIL, TAKE SOME TYPE OF ACTION TO APPROVE OUR FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS, HOPEFULLY THAT WE'VE WORKED WITH, UH, WELL ENOUGH WITH, UH, THE POLICE AND FIRE PENSION BOARD THAT WE ARE IN AGREEMENT ON THAT, UH, AND GET SOME TYPE OF, UH, APPROVAL IN JUNE.
WE WOULD LIKE THAT IN ADVANCE OF YOUR JULY RECESS.
UM, SO THAT WHEN WE BRING YOU THE CITY MANAGER'S BUDGET RECOMMENDATION IN AUGUST, THAT WE CAN INCORPORATE ANY CHANGES IN THE CONTRIBUTION RATES FOR, UH, THE FUND AND THEN SUBMIT PLANS, UH, TO, UH, AUSTIN FOR THE PENSION REVIEW BOARD IN AUGUST OR SEPTEMBER, WHICH IS AHEAD OF ALL THE DEADLINE REQUIREMENTS.
SO ON SLIDE 38 AND 39, UH, IF YOU, UH, CHOOSE TO NOT HOLD A MAY ELECTION AND ARE GONNA HAVE A NOVEMBER ELECTION INSTEAD FOR ERF, AGAIN, LAID OUT KIND OF A, A PATH FORWARD, A LESS AGGRESSIVE PATH FOR ERF 'CAUSE WE DON'T HAVE TO CALL THE ELECTION BY, UH, FEBRUARY 14TH.
SO AGAIN, I'VE LAID OUT THE DATES.
I KNOW THE COMING SPECIAL CALLED MEETINGS AND BRIEFINGS THAT WE WOULD HAVE WORK WOULD CONTINUE ON BOTH PLANS THROUGH FEBRUARY AND MAY.
AGAIN, TRYING TO GET COUNCIL APPROVAL IN JUNE ON THE PLANS SO THAT WHEN WE COME IN AUGUST, THAT WE ARE ABLE TO INCLUDE THAT INTO OUR BUDGET IF WE'RE GOING FOR A NOVEMBER ELECTION FOR ERF.
THAT DATE FOR CALLING THAT ELECTION IS AUGUST THE 14TH.
WE WOULD STILL SUBMIT BOTH PLANS IN AUGUST OR SEPTEMBER TO THE STATE PENSION REVIEW BOARD.
UH, IF THERE'S A NOVEMBER ELECTION FOR ERF THAT OCCURS ON NOVEMBER THE FIFTH.
IN OUR CONVERSATION WITH THE PENSION REVIEW BOARD STAFF, WE COULD SUBMIT THE PLAN WITHOUT HAVING THE ELECTION PASSED, BUT WE WOULD HAVE TO SUBMIT A SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION AFTER THE ELECTION OCCURRED.
SO BOTH, BOTH PLANS, BOTH PATHS WORK.
UH, IT'S, IT'S THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION ON, ON HOW YOU WANT TO PROCEED ON SLIDE 40.
UH, MY LAST SLIDE, UH, THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO, UM, UH, AN ADDITIONAL NEXT STEP AS PART OF OUR TIMELINE.
UH, SEPTEMBER THROUGH DECEMBER, UH, THE COMMITTEE HEARD ABOUT THIS CASH INFUSION, UH, SELLING ASSETS OR LEASING ASSETS.
WELL, WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DO NOW, FEBRUARY THROUGH APRIL, AND I'VE WORKED WITH, UH, ROBERT PEREZ, WHO'S ALREADY, UH, ENGAGED IN THIS PROCESS OF IDENTIFYING, UH, THE TOP FIVE TO 10 CITY ASSETS THAT COULD BE POTENTIALLY MONETIZED EITHER THROUGH A LONG-TERM LEASE, PRIVATE, PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP OR SELL IF IT'S DEEMED AS SURPLUS PROPERTY, THEN MAY THROUGH SEPTEMBER, ENGAGE A CONSULTANT TO ASSIST US IN VALUATION OF THOSE PROPERTIES IN DEVELOPING RECOMMENDATIONS ON HOW WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO MONETIZE ASSETS, UH, BRING THAT TO COMMITTEE, UH, GPFM AND THEN TO FULL COUNSEL IN THE OCTOBER TO DECEMBER TIMEFRAME, AND THEN BEGIN IN JANUARY OF NEXT YEAR PROCEEDING.
HOWEVER, COUNCIL DIRECTS US TO DO, REGARDING MONETIZING ASSETS, AGAIN, ANY MONETIZATION WOULD HELP.
THE PLANS WOULD SHORE THEM UP, WOULD REDUCE OUR LONG-TERM COST.
HOWEVER, THE PLANS FOLLOWING AN ACTUARILY DETERMINED CONTRIBUTION WILL GET TO A 30 YEAR FUNDING, UH, LEVEL OR BE FULLY FUNDED WITHIN THE 30 YEARS THAT'S REQUIRED BY USING THE ACTUARILY DETERMINED CONTRIBUTION RATE.
SO WE CAN GET THERE WITHOUT THE CASH INFUSION.
IT JUST MAKES IT EASIER AND LOWERS THOSE FUTURE YEAR COSTS IF WE DO HAVE THAT.
SO, UH, LAST THING I WANNA SAY IS ON THE NEXT SLIDE, WHICH IS BE SLIDE 40, I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT COMING SOON, WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON A, A SITE, UH, DALLAS.GOV, UH, SLASH PENSIONS, WHERE WE'RE GOING TO PULL TOGETHER THE DIFFERENT BRIEFINGS WE'VE HAD AND, AND PUT MORE INFORMATION OUT THERE JUST TO BE A LITTLE MORE TRANSPARENT WITH WHAT HAS BEEN GOING ON, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT IT'S AN INTEREST OF, UH, OF MANY EMPLOYEES, RETIREES, AND STAKEHOLDERS THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
SO THERE'LL BE THAT COMING, UH, AND THAT'LL BE AVAILABLE, UH, NEXT FRIDAY THE 19TH.
[00:40:01]
PREPARED REMARKS.AGAIN, I'LL SAY ONE MORE TIME, I APOLOGIZE YOU DIDN'T GET THIS SOONER.
AND SO THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO GO THROUGH IT MORE SLOWLY, UH, TO ALLOW YOU, UH, TO TAKE TIME.
SO WITH THAT CHAIRMAN, BACK TO YOU, SIR.
SINCE WE GOTTA CITY MANAGER HERE.
UM, MS. TC, BRO, YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING BEFORE WE GET STARTED? THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.
WELL, I'M GONNA START OFF BY SAYING I REALLY DO OBJECT TO RECEIVING THIS RIGHT BEFORE THE MEETING.
THERE ARE, I DON'T KNOW, PROBABLY 50 SLIDES.
THIS IS A MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR DECISION AND YOU'RE ALREADY RUSHING US TO A MAY ELECTION.
THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WE'VE HEARD STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND I'M A PRETTY FAST READER AND I COULDN'T KEEP UP WITH YOU.
SO EITHER THE MEETING SHOULD HAVE BEEN POSTPONED OR THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN POSTED MUCH EARLIER, AND I DON'T EVEN, I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT TO SAY ABOUT THAT OTHER THAN I'M, I'M, I'M VERY UNHAPPY WITH HOW THAT HAPPENED.
SO WITH QUESTIONS, I HAVE QUITE A FEW QUESTIONS.
MAYBE WOULD'VE HAD LESS IF I HAD MORE TIME TO THINK ABOUT IT.
UM, I'M GONNA START WITH SOME COMMENTS, WHICH IS, I HAVE NO INTENTION OF VOTING TO PUT THIS ON A BALLOT WHEN WE DON'T HAVE A SOLID PLAN FOR THE POLICE FIRE PENSION FUND.
I THINK IT'S EXTREMELY OBJECTIONABLE THAT WE WOULD EVEN DARE TO DO THAT WHEN OUR MOST DESPERATE STAFFING IN THIS ENTIRE CITY IS THE POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS.
AND WE'RE CURRENTLY NOT MEETING OUR STAFFING GOALS.
AND YOU'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND TRY TO, AND TRY TO DO THIS.
I'M, I'M JUST SHOCKED BY THAT.
UM, THIS MORNING AT THE POLICE FIRE PENSION FUND BOARD MEETING, THEY USED SOME DIFFERENT NUMBERS.
SO I THINK IT WAS 82 OR 83 YEARS NOW, AND THEN YOU'VE GOT A DIFFERENT NUMBER OF YEARS FOR ERF TO HAVE A 30 YEAR ACTUAL, ACTUAL, UH, UM, 30 YEAR AMORTIZATION.
SO ARE THESE NEW NUMBERS? I MEAN, I THINK IT WAS PREVIOUSLY 45 YEARS FOR ERF AND NOW IT'S 51 AND I THINK THEY SAID 82 OR 83.
AND YOU'VE GOT 68 IN THE PRESENTATION ON PAGE FIVE.
I, I CONCUR CON CONFER WITH, UM, UH, KELLY ON THE DIFFERENCE IN THE NUMBERS ON THAT, UH, THE 68 UH, YEARS IS BASED ON INFORMATION THAT DELOITTE PROVIDED ME, UH, REGARDING THE, UH, 1 1 22 VALUATION REPORT.
AND SO IF THEY'VE USED DIFFERENT NUMBERS, I'M NOT AWARE OF THAT.
OKAY, SO WE HAVE TO GET TO 30 YEARS ACCORDING TO STATE LAW AND THEY'RE AT 82 YEARS.
AND YET THE VERY FIRST THING THAT Y'ALL WANNA DEAL WITH IS ERF.
AND YOU HAVE PREVIOUSLY TOLD ME YOU ARE GONNA TAKE CARE OF ERF FIRST.
AND THE PROBLEM IS, WHEN I WAS GPFM CHAIR, THE PROBLEM IS EVERY SINGLE PERSON AT CITY HALL IS IN CONFLICT.
'CAUSE THEY ARE A MEMBER OF ERF.
AND I STILL WANNA KNOW WHERE'S OUR OUTSIDE FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS WHO CAN GIVE AN UNBIASED OPINION.
I HAVEN'T HEARD ANY PRESENTATION THAT TALKS ABOUT WHAT IF WE MOVE THIS TO A 401K FOR OUR ACTIVE MEMBERS, WHERE'S THAT, WHERE'S ANY KIND OF CREATIVE SOLUTIONS OTHER THAN, OH, LET'S LIFT THE LID AND LET'S JUST CONTRIBUTE MORE TO IT.
SO MY RECOLLECTION IS, 10 YEARS AGO, THIS CITY FIXED THE ERF, YOU STILL HAVE THREE PENSION BONDS GOING, WELL, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TWO GOING RIGHT AFTER 2025.
AND WE'RE STILL GONNA FIX IT AGAIN.
WE'RE GONNA POUR EVEN MORE MONEY INTO IT.
AND SO I, I THINK THIS IS VERY PROBLEMATIC AND I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU'RE EVEN POSING THE QUESTION TO US OF WHEN WE WOULD HAVE AN ELECTION WHEN WE'VE LITERALLY NOT HAD A SINGLE DISCUSSION.
WE'VE JUST HAD PRESENTATIONS OF INFORMATION.
SO A HUNDRED PERCENT IT'S A NOVEMBER DATE IN MY OPINION.
SO I'M JUST GONNA SAY THAT, UM, THERE ARE SO MANY OTHER QUESTIONS THAT I HAVE.
LET'S GO TO SLIDE NUMBER FIVE.
SO THIS SAYS ON THE LAST BULLET THAT THE, THE PLANS HAVE TO BE SUBMITTED, BUT IT'S THE PENSION PLANS THAT SUBMIT IT, RIGHT? LIKE YOU EVEN WRITE IT, DALLAS POLICE FIRE PENSION AND ERF MUST SUBMIT BY THIS DATE, BUT THE CITY IS ALSO SUBMITTING A REPORT.
IS THAT CORRECT? THE PLAN? SO THE INTENT, UH, FOR THE, UH, FUNDING SOUNDNESS RESTORATION PLAN PER OUR UNDERSTANDING WITH CONVERSATION WITH THE STAFF OF THE PENSION REVIEW BOARD, UH, HAVE INDICATED,
[00:45:01]
UH, ON SLIDE FIVE THAT IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE PUBLIC RETIREMENT SYSTEM BEING THE BOARD AND, AND NOT, OR THAT THE ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY BEING THE SPONSOR, IN THIS CASE, THE CITY, ARE REQUIRED TO FORMULATE A PLAN.AND SO IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING, UH, FROM OUR CONVERSATIONS WITH THE PENSION REVIEW BOARD, THAT THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING WE WOULD DO TOGETHER.
AND SO, UM, I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD.
WELL, I'M GONNA SAY I PRAY THAT WE CAN COME UP WITH THE SAME PLAN AND GO HAND IN HAND TOGETHER, BUT WHAT IF WE DON'T? WHAT IF THEY HAVE A PLAN AND THE CITY HAS A PLAN AND THEY'RE NOT THE SAME, THEN WHAT HAPPENS? HOW DOES THAT WORK? SO YOU'RE RIGHT, THAT'S NOT THE PREFERRED PATH WE SHOULD TAKE.
AND I AM FULLY COMMITTED TO WORKING WITH THE STAFF.
AND I BELIEVE I HAVE A COMMITMENT FROM KELLY THAT SHE'S WILLING TO DO THAT AS WELL.
HOWEVER, THERE'S TWO GOVERNING BODIES AND IF THEY VOTE ON SOMETHING DIFFERENT, THEN IT WOULD GO TO THE PENSION REVIEW BOARD.
I AM NOT SURE WHAT THE PENSION REVIEW BOARD WOULD DO WITH THAT.
I'M NOT SURE IF THEY SEND THE TWO PLANS TO THE STATE LEGISLATURE.
I DO NOT KNOW IF THEY SEND IT BACK TO THE CITY AND THE PLAN AND SAY, GO FIGURE IT OUT.
I WOULD RATHER US DEAL WITH THIS AS A LOCAL ISSUE AND NOT IT BE A STATE ISSUE.
AND SO I WILL DO EVERYTHING THAT'S WITHIN MY POWER TO WORK WITH BOTH FUNDS TO COME UP WITH A PLAN THAT WE CAN AGREE TO.
BUT I, I WILL ADVISE YOU BASED ON MY RECOMMENDATIONS AND WHAT I BELIEVE IS BEST FROM THE CITY, IF I HAVE A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION, I, I WILL TELL YOU THAT.
BUT, UH, SO I OBJECT TO A THREE TO FIVE YEAR RAMP UP PERIOD.
WE HAVE HAD SEVEN YEARS SINCE THE LAST GROUP WENT DOWN TO THE STATE LEDGE THAT WE COULD HAVE BEEN RAMPING UP.
WE COULD HAVE BEEN DOING ADDITIONAL CHECKS IF WE WANTED TO.
WE COULD HAVE BEEN SELLING OFF REAL ESTATE AND PUTTING IT IN AN ACCOUNT FOR THIS DAY.
AND SO AS SOON AS I, I THINK WE'RE READY FOR THE ACTUALLY DETERMINED CONTRIBUTION AND FRANKLY, I THINK THAT WILL ENCOURAGE US TO ACTUALLY SELL OFF SOME REAL ESTATE.
MY TIME UP, I'M NOT TRYING TO CUT YOU OUT, BUT LET US KIND OF STICK TO THE QUESTION.
YOU MADE A WHOLE LOT OF STATEMENT.
WE GONNA COME BACK AND MAKE SURE YOU HAVE SOME QUESTIONS, BUT YOUR TIME IS UP, BUT WE GONNA COME BACK SO YOU HAVE SOME CHANCE TO ASK A QUESTION.
CHAIRMAN MARINA, MAY I RESPOND ABOUT THAT? YES, PLEASE.
SO, I, I DISAGREE THAT NOTHING'S HAPPENED OVER THE LAST SEVEN YEARS.
UM, SEVEN YEARS AGO OR IN 2017, THE STATE, UH, AND THE DELEGATION THAT WENT TO WORK ON IT FROM THE CITY, WHETHER IT WAS THE FORMER MAYOR OR MEMBERS OF POLICE AND FIRE PENSION, UH, THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT AND THE PLAN WAS SEVEN YEARS OF FIXED CONTRIBUTION RATE WITH AN ADDITIONAL $13 MILLION WITH THE FLOOR.
THERE HAVE BEEN, THERE HAVE BEEN CHANGES, OTHER CHANGES BEYOND THAT THAT WERE MADE, INCLUDING TO THE GOVERNANCE OF THE, UH, FUND.
THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF CHANGES REGARDING THEIR INVESTMENTS.
THERE'S BEEN A LOT THAT HAS HAPPENED AND WE HAVE COMPLIED WITH WHAT WAS AGREED TO IN 2017.
THEY MADE CHANGES TO INVESTMENTS.
THEY MADE CHANGES TO GOVERNANCE.
BUT EVEN THESE LAST TWO YEARS, WE'VE HAD TO PLAY THAT MINIMUM FLOOR 'CAUSE WE HAVE NOT HIT OUR MINIMUM CONTRIBUTION.
WE PAID, WE ATTEMPTED, LITERALLY ATTEMPTED TO GO BEYOND THAT TWO YEARS AGO LEASE AMOUNT.
WE WERE ALLOWED TO LEGALLY ONE AT A TIME.
WE ATTEMPTED TO GO BEYOND THAT TWO YEARS AGO WHEN WE INCLUDED AN ADDITIONAL $14 MILLION IN THE BUDGET TO SET ASIDE FOR THE DALLAS POLICE AND FIRE PENSION SYSTEM ACKNOWLEDGING THAT WE NEEDED TO START DOING SOMETHING.
UH, THERE WERE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO AMENDED THE BUDGET AND USED THAT FOR OTHER PURPOSES THAT WERE A PRIORITY AT THAT TIME.
AND THAT WAS THE CITY MANAGER MANAGER.
AND HE SAID HE WOULD NOT SEND A CHECK TO THE PENSION FUND ON THE TIME.
WE'RE GONNA BE VERY PROFESSIONAL.
WHEN ONE PERSON SPEAK, OTHER PERSON, LISTEN.
WE GOT PEOPLE LISTENING TO THIS.
LET'S STAY ON, ON ON Q PLEASE.
I'M JUST GONNA ECHO MY FRUSTRATION INTO DIS DISAPPOINTMENT AS WELL WITH THE DELIVERY AND THE TIMING OF THIS BRIEFING.
UM, I UNDERSTAND THAT A LOT OF HARD WORK AND ANALYSIS WENT INTO THIS, UH, BUT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S VERY COMPLEX.
I'M NOT, I'M, UH, THIS IS NOT THE, WHAT WE DO, WHAT WE DO EVERY SINGLE DAY.
AND SO TRYING TO SOAK ALL THIS INFORMATION IN AND BE PREPARED FOR THE QUESTIONS, UM, IS, UH, I'M DETERMINED TO HAVE SOME, UH, ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS AS WE, AS WE GO THROUGH A DIFFERENT REALM.
BUT WHAT I WANNA, UM, I'M NOT, AND I'M NOT MARRIED TO, UH, EITHER A MAY OR NOVEMBER ELECTION, BUT WHAT I AM COMMITTED TO IS,
[00:50:01]
UM, HAVING A SOLID PLAN FOR, UH, BOTH PENSIONS, UH, MOVING FORWARD.UM, YOU TALKED A LOT ABOUT THE, THE CASH INFUSION, WHICH I'M VERY SUPPORTIVE OF AND, UM, AND COMMITTED TO AS WELL WITH IDENTIFYING PROPERTIES THAT WOULD YIELD THE HIGHEST OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THE BIGGEST, UH, UH, BANG.
UM, CAN YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHAT PLAN IS BEING PROPOSED, UM, TO IDENTIFY THOSE PROPERTIES AND WHO'S GONNA BE TAKING THE LEAD ON IN THAT AREA? UH, DR. ROBERT PEREZ, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER, IS, UM, OVER REAL ESTATE, WHICH IS IN PUBLIC WORKS AND TRANSPORTATION.
AND HE HAS ALREADY BEEN WORKING, UH, ON, UH, AN INVENTORY OF ALL THE REAL ESTATE, UH, BEGINNING TO LOOK AT IT, TRYING TO IDENTIFY, UH, PROPERTIES THAT ARE NOT BEING USED AT THEIR HIGHEST AND BEST USE, UM, WORKING WITH HIM.
AND THEN ALSO THE, UM, THE STUDY GROUP THAT WE HAD, THEY LOOKED AT PROPERTIES AND THEY HAVE SOME SUGGESTIONS.
UH, THE GOAL IS TO IDENTIFY FIVE TO 10 PROPERTIES THAT WE THINK WOULD HAVE THE MOST POTENTIAL AND THEN WORK WITH THE CONSULTANT TO VALUE THOSE PROPERTIES AND, AND TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THAT PATH FORWARD WOULD LOOK LIKE.
WE DO HAVE A LOT OF PROPERTIES, UM, BUT TO, TO REALLY HAVE THE CASH INFUSION THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, IT'S GONNA TAKE A LOT OF MONEY.
AND, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF OUR PROPERTIES ARE VALUED HALF A MILLION DOLLARS OR SOMETHING.
I MEAN, IT WOULD TAKE A WHOLE LOT OF PROPERTIES TO, TO GENERATE THE KIND OF MONEY WE NEED FOR THIS.
BUT, UM, SO WE WE'RE GONNA BE LOOKING AT THE MUCH MORE HIGH DOLLAR VALUED PROPERTIES.
UM, YOU MENTIONED, UH, A ROBUST, UH, WEBSITE THAT'S GOING TO BE GOING, UM, COMING ON.
WHEN DOES THAT GO LIVE AND, AND HOW ARE CONSTITUENTS GONNA FIND THAT? YEAH, OUR GOAL FOR, UH, THE GO LIVE IS NEXT FRIDAY THE 19TH.
WE'RE HOPEFUL THAT WE HIT THAT TARGET, UH, IN ADVANCE, BUT IF NOT THE 19TH NEXT FRIDAY.
AND I REALLY APPRECIATE, UH, CARRIE ROGERS FOR ALL THE WORK SHE'S DOING TO HELP WITH THAT.
AND I MEAN, UM, I GUESS I'M KIND OF IN A DIFFERENT OPINION.
THIS INFORMATION IS KIND OF LIKE A COMP COMPILATION OF THE OTHER ONES UP UNTIL YOU GET TO THE, YOUR RECOMMENDATION.
I MEAN, MAYBE I'M JUST A DIFFERENT ANIMAL.
SO MY QUESTION IS, AND YES, I AGREE, MAYBE WE DO NEED AN UNBIASED EXPERT TO LOOK AT BOTH PENSIONS TO SEE WHAT NUMBERS ARE WHAT, AND TO GIVE US SOME GOOD DATA.
BECAUSE I SAW THAT IN ONE, I THINK IT WAS 49% WHEN THE LEGISLATURE IN 2017, BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THEIR PRESENTATIONS, IT'S CREEPING DOWN.
SO MY QUESTION IS, WE FOLLOWED THE LEGISLATION WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY WAS TO SAY WE'RE ABOUT TO HIT ANOTHER ICEBERG, OR THERE'S SOMETHING AHEAD OF US BECAUSE IT SEEMS THAT'S WHERE THE DISCONNECT BECAME.
AND I DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU CAME TO ANOTHER COMMITTEE, WHICH I THINK SOMEONE WAS A, UH, CHAIR OF THAT COMMITTEE, DO YOU TAKE IT TO GPFM AND SAY, THIS IS WHAT THEY'RE SAYING, BECAUSE I DO HAVE ALL THEIR ACTUARIES REPORTS THAT THEY COME OUT WITH AND IT SHOWS THAT IT'S DECLINING.
SO THAT'S MY QUESTION IS WHO'S THE, WHO'S THE RESPONSIBLE PARTY FOR MAKING SURE THAT THIS AND ALL PENSIONS ARE SOUND? MM-HMM,
SO REPORTS ARE DUE TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE, UH, PENSION REVIEW BOARD BY EACH FUND, UH, ANNUALLY.
AND, UH, THEY TRACK THE PROGRESS OF THE EACH FUND THROUGHOUT THE STATE.
AND WE HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED THAT FOR BOTH FUNDS, E EVEN IF IT WASN'T HOUSE BILL 31 58 FOR POLICE AND FIRE, IF THAT WASN'T A SITUATION, WE HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED THAT BOTH OF OUR FUNDS HAVE TRIGGERED THE REQUIREMENT OF SUBMITTING A FUNDING SOUND DIS RESTORATION PLAN BY NINE ONE OF 25.
SO THEY ARE AT A STATEWIDE LEVEL LOOKING AT ALL FUNDS THROUGHOUT THE STATE.
THAT'S NOT ALL OF YOUR QUESTION.
I REALIZE THAT WE HAVE BROUGHT, UH, UH, BRIEFINGS TO GPFM.
I KNOW WE DID, UH, FALL OF 22, UH, WAS THE LAST TIME I THINK WE DID.
THAT WAS THE LAST REPORTS THAT WE HAD.
UH, PRIOR TO THAT, I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK BACK AND SEE HOW FREQUENTLY WE BRIEFED GPFM.
UM, ONE THING ABOUT HOUSE BILL 31 58 IS THEY KNEW THAT WHAT WAS DONE IN 2017 WAS A NEAR TERM FIX.
AND THEY REQUIRED STATE LEGISLATION REQUIRED THAT, UH, IN BY 25 THAT WE WERE LOOKING AT THIS AGAIN.
SO THAT WAS A SAFEGUARD THEY PUT IN PLACE FOR THAT PLAN.
SO HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T GET BACK IN THIS PICKLE AGAIN? ASK AGAIN, PLEASE.
HOW DO WE MAKE SURE WE DON'T GET BACK IN THIS PICKLE AGAIN? I KNOW WE'VE CHANGED GOVERNANCE, I KNOW WE'VE DONE THIS AND THAT, BUT
[00:55:01]
I'M NOT CONFIDENT THAT WE ARE ON A PATH WITH EITHER ONE THAT'S SOUND AND SOLID AND THAT I DON'T WANNA LEAVE A PLACE FOR ANOTHER COUNCIL TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS AGAIN.AND SO IT'S PROBABLY SOMETHING THAT'S APPROPRIATE THAT WE, UH, INCLUDE IN OUR REQUIREMENTS OF BOTH FUNDS TO, TO BRIEF GPFM AT LEAST ANNUALLY, THEM THEMSELVES WITH THEIR BOARD CHAIR.
YES, BECAUSE I DO SEE STAFF HERE, BUT I DO THINK YOU HAVE A, YOU HAVE A BOARD THAT IS BEING APPOINTED BY PEOPLE THAT SIT ON THIS, UH, SIT AROUND HERE AND THEY NEED TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE TO.
UM, AND THEN YOU TALK ABOUT, WE TALK ABOUT THE LANGUAGE FOR A MAY BALLOT.
OR A CALL, A CALL THAT IS NOT TO DO POVS.
THERE IS LANG AND SO YOU DIDN'T, IT'S NOT IN HERE, BUT IT WAS IN THE LAST BRIEFING, I BELIEVE THAT THEY GAVE, WHAT WOULD BE THE LANGUAGE FOR CHANGING 40 A THAT, THAT THE PEOPLE NEED TO VOTE ON THAT PEOPLE.
IT'S NOT AN FUNDING MECHANISM, IT'S AN ALLOWANCE OF WHAT, SO TAMMY, DO YOU WANT, YOU'VE MET WITH THEM REGARDING THE CHANGES TO 40 A, I BELIEVE.
CAN YOU HELP ME WITH THAT? THANK YOU.
THIS IS TAMMY PALOMINO CITY ATTORNEY.
WE MET WITH THE RF ON MONDAY AND THEY PROVIDED US THEIR DRAFT CHANGES.
AND THEIR DRAFT CHANGES ARE FOCUSED ON THE CONTRIBUTION, LIFTING THE CAP, AND THEN INCREASING THE, UM, CON EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION.
SO YOU HAVE TO DO THAT BEFORE YOU CAN EVEN CREATE A PLAN.
WELL, THAT'S PART OF THE PLAN.
THAT'S PART OF THE PLAN AND IT'S THE FIRST STEP.
IT CAN, IT CAN NOT NECESSARILY.
I MEAN, WE, THE PRB, WE TALKED TO THEM THE OTHER DAY AND THEY SAID THAT, THAT, THAT THE PLAN COULD BE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ELECTION, EITHER MAY OR NOVEMBER, AND THEY WOULD CONSIDER IT A DRAFT PLAN.
AND WHEN THE ELECTION IS OVER, THEN THEY WOULD, UM, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD DO A LITTLE BIT OF PRELIMINARY PAPERWORK AND THEN THEY WOULD CONSIDER THAT THE FUNDING SUM RESTORATION PLAN FOR THE ERF.
BUT IT, BUT IT WOULD BE INCORPORATED.
IT HAS TO HAPPEN REGARDLESS AS PART OF THE PLAN.
THEY NEED, THEY YES, UNDER ERF 48, UM, THEIR ORDINANCE IS, UH, PART OF THAT ORDINANCE IS THE PLAN.
SO WE NEED TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES.
I MEAN, I'M, IT'S LIKE I, WE NEED TO DO IT BECAUSE IT NEEDS TO HAPPEN.
IF IT'S IN MAY, THEN WE SHOULD PUT OTHER, I MEAN, BUNDLE, IT, NOVEMBER'S GONNA BE CRAZY FOR AN ELECTION TIME AND IT'S A DOWN BALLOT ISSUE, WHICH MEANS PEOPLE WILL NOT GO ALL THE WAY TO THE END UNLESS THEY'RE FOCUSED ON THAT.
SO I MEAN, UM, IT, IT'S JUST, WE GOTTA GET SOME THINGS FIXED AND WE GOTTA START, WE GOTTA CREATE SOME MECHANISMS TO GET IT FIXED.
AND SO, UH, WE'VE MADE A PROMISE TO ALL OF OUR EMPLOYEES AND WE HAVE TO, WE HAVE TO, WE HAVE TO FULFILL THAT.
BUT YOU NEED TO GIVE US AND THE PEOPLE WE REPRESENT THAT THERE, THE MONEY THAT WE DO GIVE AND THE AUTHORITY WE GIVE WILL BE HELD WITH THAT WILL BE SACRED.
AND THEY WILL, THEY WILL, THEY WILL NOT ABUSE IT BECAUSE WE'VE SEEN WHAT IT WAS, IT WAS PAST BAD STUFF THAT HAPPENED AND I'M, I, I CAN'T LET IT HAPPEN AGAIN.
SORRY, I GOT OFF ON IT TOO MUCH.
UM, YOU KNOW, LOTS OF TIMES WHEN WE HAVE PRESENTATIONS, THEY PICK UP WHERE THE LAST PRESENTATION LEFT OFF.
AND IN THIS CASE, I THINK IT'S OKAY TO COMPILE THIS AND KIND OF, UH, GIVE US A BIT OF A CHRONOLOGY OF WHAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON OVER THE PAST FEW MONTHS BECAUSE, UH, POLICE AND FIRE PENSION FUND HAS AN OBLIGATION TO ITS BENEFICIARIES.
UH, THE ERF HAS AN OBLIGATION TO ITS BENEFICIARIES.
WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO CURRENT EMPLOYEES AND RETIREES.
WE ALSO HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO THE TAXPAYERS.
SO, UM, I THINK IT'S OKAY TO BUILD ON THIS.
I DON'T MIND THE TIMELINES AND LOOKING AT THE ELECTION SCENARIOS, THAT DOESN'T BOTHER ME BECAUSE, UH, EVEN IF WE DISAGREE ON OPTIONS, I THINK THIS IS WHERE WE HAVE TO ENCAPSULATE THIS AND KEEP IT TOGETHER SO THAT WE ALL CAN GO BACK AND REFER TO THIS.
UM, A FEW POINTS, UH, ON THE APPENDIX.
I THINK YOU WERE STARTING TO ANSWER MY QUESTIONS FROM THE LAST MEETING, UH, WHICH WE WERE KIND OF LATE AND CONFERRING ON, BUT IT, IT GETS AT SOME NUMBERS AROUND PERFORMANCE.
BUT, UH, I STILL WANT THAT TEMPLATE TO JUST SIMPLIFY THE COMPARISON AND WITH REGARD TO HOW THESE FUNDS MOVE IN, WHAT WE'RE DOING, UM, TIMING WISE, YOU KNOW, ONE SEEMS TO BE PERFORMING DIFFERENTLY THAN THE OTHER.
UM, AND SO WE MAY NEED TO MOVE DIFFERENTLY.
SO I DON'T NECESSARILY WANT US TO FEEL OBLIGATED TO ALWAYS HAVE THIS LINKED, WE WANNA DO THE RIGHT THING, BUT WE ALSO ALSO HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT WHILE THESE ARE BOTH PENSION FUNDS, I MEAN THEY ARE DIFFERENT PENSION FUNDS.
AND SO I THINK IT'S PERFECTLY RIGHT TO LOOK AT THEM THAT WAY.
UM, ONE OTHER POINT I I KNOW ONE OF THE REFERENCES ABOUT, OR A RECOMMENDATION OR OPTION RATHER, IS TO MONETIZE ASSETS.
I DO WANT THE PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND IT'S NOT AS EASY, KIND OF AS YOU SAID, TO JUST START SELLING THINGS.
[01:00:01]
ARE OCCUPIED BY CITY EMPLOYEES PROVIDING SERVICES TO OUR TAXPAYERS.AND SO, UH, IN ADDITION TO WHAT'S THAT SHINY PRICE TAG, IT IS, WHAT IS THE COST TO RELOCATE PEOPLE AND OPERATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY AND ALL OF THAT.
SO, UM, IT, IT KIND OF SOUNDS LIKE A QUICK FIX AND A NICE SUCCINCT BULLET, BUT, UH, THERE'S A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THAT TO FIGURE OUT.
BUT FINALLY, AND I THINK, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSSOHN WAS GOING THIS DIRECTION BECAUSE THIS IS ONE THING I HAVEN'T HEARD US LOOK AT OR SEEN ANY NUMBERS AROUND.
AND THAT IS THE ACTUARIAL LIABILITY, I MEAN, OF A, OF A BUYOUT AND A SHIFT TO A 3 57 PLAN, UH, OR A 401K THAT SO MANY OTHER, UH, OF OUR RESIDENTS HAVE AND, UH, ALLOW THEM TO HAVE THEIR OWN FLEXIBILITY AND MANAGE THEIR OWN FUNDS, UH, LIKE, LIKE SO MANY OTHERS DO.
AND SO I HAVEN'T SEEN THAT WE'VE EXPLORED THAT, AND I DEFINITELY WANT US TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT.
I MEAN, I THINK, I THINK WE NEED TO, WE HAVE TO HAVE ALL THE CARDS ON THE TABLE TO FULFILL OUR OBLIGATION NOT ONLY TO THOSE, UH, RECEIVING BENEFITS FROM THE FUNDS, BUT TO OUR TAXPAYERS, THEY'RE GONNA WANNA KNOW THIS ANSWER TO THAT.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE ALREADY GOT THESE NUMBERS SOMEWHERE THAT I'VE MISSED, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THE ANNUAL PAYOUT PER YEAR FOR THE NEXT 10 YEARS ANNUAL CONTRIBUTION FROM THE TAXPAYERS AND FROM EMPLOYEES FOR THE NEXT 10 YEARS.
AND I KNOW WE'VE GOT A VARIABLE IN THERE, LIKE IF WE MOVE TO THE 14% VERSUS THE 3.3 AND JUST WHAT THAT ANNUAL GAP IS.
SO I'M HAPPY TO CIRCLE BACK WITH YOU ON THIS, BUT I DO THINK WE NEED TO EXPLORE THIS OPTION JUST IN A MATTER OF GOOD DUE DILIGENCE.
AND, UH, ON SLIDE 36, AS AN EXAMPLE FOR, FOR THE MEETING NEXT FRIDAY, IT IS MY, UH, EFFORT TO, UH, WORK WITH DELOITTE TO HAVE THOSE NUMBERS THAT SHOW THOSE COST COMPARISONS FOR YOU.
YOU HAVE A QUESTION ANOTHER TIME.
UH, CHAD WEST, ARE YOU STILL THERE? CHAIRMAN WEST.
OKAY, LET'S GO, GO BACK TO CHAIRMAN MIDDLE SECOND ROUND.
SO ON SLIDE 17, CAN YOU TELL US WHAT IS OUR CURRENT PENSION CONTRIBUTION AND WHAT WOULD OUR CURRENT CONTRIBUTION BE TODAY IF WE WERE CONTRIBUTING THE ACTUARILY DETERMINED CONTRIBUTION? I'M SORRY, TODAY'S CONTRIBUTION PLUS WHAT? I JUST REPEAT THE QUESTION.
THIS FISCAL YEAR, WHAT IS OUR PENSION CONTRIBUTION FOR POLICE FIRE? SO I'M GONNA HAVE TO LOOK FOR IT, OR I'M HOPING, UH, KELLY, DO YOU KNOW THE ANSWER OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD? WHAT, UH, APPROXIMATELY 180.
AND WHAT WOULD IT BE IF IT WAS THE ACTUARILY DETERMINED CONTRIBUTION? DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT NUMBER IS? I'M, I'M AGAIN CALLING A FRIEND.
DO YOU KNOW THAT? I DON'T THINK THE PARENT HAS.
YEAH, WE'LL HAVE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH THAT COUNCIL MEMBER.
SO IN THE CHART YOU HAVE, YOU'VE GOT 142 FOR UNFUNDED LIABILITY AND THE, UM, 28 MILLION FOR, UM, THE NORMAL COST.
AND SO YOU'RE SHOWING WHEN YOU GO DOWN HERE THAT WE GET TO 400 AND, I DON'T KNOW, $30 MILLION.
SO THAT'S NOT POSSIBLE IN A CITY BUDGET, CORRECT? I MEAN, NO, NO.
AND, AND SO THAT WOULD BE IN, UH, YEAR 2050 AND THE WAY THIS IS PROPOSED TO PHASE UP OVER THREE YEARS, 20, 40, 60, AND THEN USE THE A DC.
SO I'M GONNA GUESS THAT A NUMBER OF THE DECISION MAKERS AND UPPER MANAGEMENT AREN'T GONNA BE HERE AFTER THE THREE YEARS.
YOU'RE NOT GONNA BE HERE TO HAVE TO LIVE WITH THIS KIND OF A CHART THAT GOES OUT OF SIGHT, IMPOSSIBLE TO MANAGE.
AND THAT'S WHY THE ADEC SHOULD IMMEDIATELY BE ADOPTED ON A FLAT 30 YEAR SCHEDULE.
BECAUSE YOU KNOW WHAT? THIS FIRST YEAR WILL BE REALLY ROUGH.
WE'RE GONNA GET SUPER SERIOUS ABOUT THAT BUDGET.
BUT I BET IT WILL MOTIVATE CITY HALL LIKE WE HAVE NEVER SEEN BEFORE, THAT THINGS WILL GET SOLD, THERE'LL BE A PLAN IN PLACE AND WE WON'T HAVE IT AGAIN.
BUT OTHERWISE, TO MY COLLEAGUE'S POINT, WE'RE JUST GONNA KEEP DRAGGING THIS ON.
AND NONE OF US ARE GONNA BE HERE WHEN IT GETS HARD.
AND THERE WILL BE ANOTHER COUNCIL THAT'S GONNA SIT HERE AND HAVE ALL THESE MEETINGS ONCE AGAIN.
AND MEANWHILE, WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO RECRUIT AND RETAIN THE POLICE AND FIRE OFFICERS THAT WE NEED FOR OUR CITY.
AND THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING THAT WE'RE WORKING ON.
YOU WANNA SAY THERE SHOULDN'T NECESSARILY BE PARODY.
[01:05:01]
OF THE CITY OF DALLAS.WE SHOULD ABSOLUTELY HAVE PARODY IN OUR PLANS.
THEY MIGHT BE GOVERNED DIFFERENTLY.
THERE MIGHT BE SOME DIFFERENT STATE LAWS INVOLVED.
BUT HOW IN THE WORLD DO YOU THINK IT'S OKAY TO HAVE A COLA FOR SOMEBODY WHO'S NON-SWORN SITTING RIGHT ACROSS FROM SOMEBODY WHO'S GOT A BADGE ON? AND BY THE WAY, IT IS SUPER HARD TO FIND SOMEBODY WILLING TO WEAR THAT BADGE AND THE TRAINING AND COMMITMENT IT TAKES, AND IT'S THE LENGTH OF TENURE THAT ALSO MAKES THESE PLANS SO DIFFERENT.
BUT MEANWHILE, WE HAVE A VERY HIGH TURNOVER RATE FOR NON-SWORN STAFF.
IT'S A VERY DIFFERENT SCENARIO.
AND WE COULD TRAIN PEOPLE TO DO THAT JOB.
THEY DON'T HAVE TO HAVE PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS, THEY DON'T HAVE TO HAVE NO TATTOOS AND BACKGROUND CHECKS.
WE COULD GRAB ANYBODY OFF THE STREET AND DO AN INTENSE TRAINING PROGRAM, AND IN FACT, WE TAKE PEOPLE JUST OUTTA JAIL AND DO THAT.
SO I'M MOST DEFINITELY, I MOST DEFINITELY THINK WE NEED PARODY IN THESE PLANS, ESPECIALLY IN COLA.
AND I, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU THINK YOU'RE GONNA PASS THIS KIND OF REFERENDUM FOR THE CITY.
SO I NOTICED THAT YOU PUT ON ONE OF THESE SLIDES, HOW MANY OF THE OFFICERS LIVE IN DALLAS OR NOT? I GUESS THAT'S LIKE A, A THREAT.
LET'S, LET'S TO THE STATEMENT, LET'S DO A STATEMENT.
SO THE STATEMENT IS, YOU KNOW, WHO VOTES THE PEOPLE WHO NEED POLICE AND FIRE? AND THIS CITY IS VERY CONCERNED.
I THINK IT WAS THE NUMBER ONE ITEM ON OUR, UH, ON OUR EMPLOYEE, OUR RESIDENT SURVEY.
AND I, I THINK THEY WOULD BE SHOCKED TO KNOW THAT WE'RE GONNA LIFT A CAP ON ERF, WE'RE GONNA ALLOW THEM TO HAVE A COLA, BUT WE'RE NOT GONNA HAVE A PLAN IN PLACE FOR A POLICE FIRE.
AND WE'RE GONNA, WE'RE NOT GONNA LET THEM HAVE A COLA TILL 27 70.
SO I JUST, I FIND THAT SHOCKING.
THE JACK, YOU YOU'LL RESPOND TO THAT.
I'LL, IT'S, I GUESS IT DEPENDS.
THERE'S DIFFERENT WAYS TO DEFINE THE, THE PARODY IN THAT, UH, THE COLA FOR POLICE AND FIRE, UH, IS TRIGGERED WHEN THE, IT'S 70% FUNDED, BUT WE LET E FUNDED RF IS ALREADY 70% FUNDED, BUT WE LET IT BECOME UNFUNDED.
THE CITY COUNCIL DIDN'T MAKE THE CONTRIBUTION.
MINUTE WE GET, WE GET INTO THE ARGUMENT TO THE DEAL.
SO YOU WANNA SPEAK ABOUT KOHLER, HOW THEY GOT THERE? WE GOTTA BE 70% FUNDING.
SO I THINK THEY GET SOME CLARITY BECAUSE PEOPLE LISTEN TO THIS.
UH, CITY MANAGER YOU WANT TO STEP IN, UH, LET'S GET SOME CLARITY ABOUT KOHLER, ABOUT 70% FUNDING WHEN THE KOHLER KICK IN.
SO LET'S CLEAR THIS UP, PLEASE.
WELL, AND AND JUST CAN I JUST CLARIFY ONE ITEM THAT HE CAN TALK TO? NO, NO.
THIS, THIS, FINISH THIS ITEM BECAUSE GIVING COISM WE'RE 70% FUNDED.
LET'S FINISH ONE ITEM, THEN GO TO THE NEXT QUESTION.
I WAS JUST COMMENTING I THE YES, THE, UH, THE EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FUND IS OFFERING A COLON AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
IT IS STILL PART OF THEIR PLAN.
PART OF WHAT THE STATE DID IN 2017 REQUIRES THE 70% FUNDING BEFORE, UH, POLICE AND FIRE PENSION IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE COLA.
WELL, IF THE, IF THE SAME CRITERIA WAS REQUIRED, I WAS JUST MAKING THE POINT THAT ERF IS ALREADY 70% FUNDED.
SO MY LAST QUESTION FOR YOU IS THIS, THE COMMENT OR THE PRESENTATION SAYS WE DIDN'T MEET SOME OF THE FUNDING FOR THE ERF BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HIT OUR STAFFING GOALS OR PROJECTIONS, CORRECT? MM-HMM.
SO YOU'RE MAKING PROJECTIONS ALSO FOR POLICE FIRE.
I'VE BEEN ON COUNCIL WHERE WE'VE HIT OUR STAFFING GOALS.
AND IF THEY'RE PREDICATING THAT ON BEING ABLE TO MEET STAFFING GOALS THAT WE ALREADY KNOW WE'RE NOT MEETING, THEN WHAT WE'RE GONNA CONTINUE TO HAVE THIS PROBLEM.
AND BY THE WAY, WHEN PEOPLE HEAR, OH, DALLAS, YOU'RE NEVER GONNA GET A COLA IN YOUR LIFETIME, HOW DO YOU THINK WE'RE GONNA HIT THAT STAFFING GOAL? I DON'T HAVE A COMMENT.
I THINK THAT'S COUNCILMAN I, I'M, I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE, I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED ABOUT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW AND, AND I GET THE FUNDING ISSUE.
YOU'RE MIXING QUITE A FEW ISSUES THROUGHOUT A LOT OF YOUR COMMENTS AROUND RECRUITMENT, RETENTION, OUR ABILITIES TO DO X, Y, AND Z, UH, AROUND THE PLANS AND THE NATURE OF THEM.
AND I GUESS COMPARING, SO I'M SORRY IF YOU'RE CONFUSED, I'M HAPPY TO EXPLAIN WHAT I'M SAYING.
OH, I WOULD, I WOULD PROBABLY LIKE SOME CLARITY ON WHAT IT IS YOU'RE, I GUESS, WHAT YOUR STATEMENT IS TRYING TO ACHIEVE OTHER THAN TO STATE, I GUESS QUITE A FEW DIFFERENT STATISTICS.
BUT THE REALITY IS STATE LAW DEFINES WHEN A COLA IS
[01:10:01]
ALLOWED TO BE PROVIDED, RIGHT? AND THAT'S THE STATE LAW PEOPLE'S WANTS AND DESIRES IF IT CONFLICTS WITH THE STATE LAW, ACTUALLY DON'T MATTER AT THIS POINT.THE ONLY OTHER CHALLENGE I WOULD SAY IS THE FUND, AND AGAIN, I INHERITED SOME OF THIS UNDERSTANDING OF WHERE WE ARE, BUT IF YOU LOOKED AT THE CHARTS AND THE INFORMATION PROVIDED, SOME OF THE BENEFITS AND OR INVESTMENTS AND OTHER THINGS THAT THE FUND THEMSELVES MADE AND OR THE TYPES OF THINGS THAT RESULTED IN A RUN ON THE BANK ACTUALLY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CITY'S GOVERNANCE.
AND OR WHAT WE WOULD HAVE PROBABLY BEEN RECOMMENDING, EVEN PARTICULARLY I THINK WHERE THE BIGGER PROBLEM WAS, WAS THE DROP PROGRAM AND HOW IT WAS DEFINED, WHICH ACTUALLY CAUSED QUITE A BIT OF THIS AND SOLVED THE EROSION OF THE FUNDING, UH, AND THE SOLVENCY OF THE FUND.
AND SO, AGAIN, UH, AS WE'RE TALKING TODAY, UH, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT IS NEEDED TO SHORE UP BOTH SIDES OF, OF THE HOUSE, THE POLICE AND FIRE AND PENSION FUND, AS WELL AS ERF.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY.
I THINK PITTING ONE AGAINST THE OTHER AND OR THINKING THAT COUNCIL CAN'T TAKE ACTION ON ONE WITHOUT THE OTHER, AND, AND THE WHOLE NOTION OF WHO'S GOING TO BE AROUND, UH, WHEN I GUESS THE, I GUESS, IMPLEMENTATION OF THESE THINGS NEED TO HAPPEN.
I'LL TELL YOU, THE PEOPLE IN THE PENSION PLAN THEMSELVES WILL BE AROUND, AND THE COUNCIL MEMBERS MAY BE DIFFERENT AND THE CITY MANAGER MAY BE DIFFERENT.
BUT IF WE'RE CODIFYING AND AGREEING ON DOING SOMETHING IN A PLAN, NO DIFFERENT THAN THE LAST 100 YEARS ON THE CITY SIDE, WE'VE MET AND DONE EVERYTHING PRESCRIBED AND REQUIRED FOR US TO DO THAT WAS AGREED UPON US DOING.
AND SO, AGAIN, UH, TODAY'S DISCUSSION IS LAYING OUT A FRAMEWORK FOR WHAT WE BELIEVE IS ACCOMPLISHABLE.
AND I THINK THE NEXT ITERATION OF THIS CONVERSATION AT THE NEXT BRIEFING, I THINK THERE'LL BE MUCH MORE ROBUST CONVERSATION FROM THE REST OF THE COUNCIL AND HEARING PRETTY MUCH THE SAME KIND OF INFORMATION, PARTICULARLY AROUND ERF, THAT WE'LL HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW THE CITY WANTS TO PROCEED.
BUT THERE IS NO LACK OF COMMITMENT TO ENSURING THAT WE'RE NOT KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD.
UH, AND WE'RE WANTING TO RESOLVE THIS THROUGH FUNDING.
UH, IT'S A LITTLE DIFFICULT IN SOME CASES WHEN WE'RE DEALING WITH BUDGET.
'CAUSE WE'VE GOT A LOT OF COMPETING NEEDS.
I THINK IT WAS BROUGHT UP BEFORE THAT WE HAD $14 MILLION ASIDE.
THERE WAS SOME REFERENCE TO, I GUESS, ME RECOMMENDING DOING SOMETHING WITH THE RESOURCES.
UM, AGAIN, THAT WAS GUIDED BY COUNCIL DISCUSSION AND DECISION IF IT HAPPENED BASED ON THE NEEDS AND DESIRES.
BUT WE DEFINITELY FELT LIKE WE NEEDED TO PUT MONEY ASIDE TO HAVE BUILT-IN CAPACITY IN THE SAME CONTEXT AND BREADTH THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT, REDUCING TAXES GOING TO ZERO AND NO NEW REVENUE BUDGETS IN THE FACE OF 50 AND A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF EXPENSES WE KNOW WE HAVE TO PAY.
SO I WOULD AT LEAST LIKE FOR US TO HAVE A, A HONEST DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW WE FRAME WHAT THE, UH, CAPACITY AND THE AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCES AND WHAT THE CITY CAN OR CANNOT DO IN THE SAME CONTEXT OF HOW WE PRESENT THE IDEOLOGIES AROUND HOW WE SHOULD APPROACH OUR BUDGET.
BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING IN OUR BUDGET THAT SAYS IF I REMOVE A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF TAXING AUTHORITY, THAT I'M THEN GONNA HAVE A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS TO PAY FOR WHAT YOU SAY IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN THIS CITY.
AND THAT'S THE POLICE AND FIRE PENSION.
SO AS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THINGS, AT LEAST KEEP THEM IN THE FRAMEWORK OF ONE, WHAT WE PRESENTED TODAY AND HOW THIS COUNCIL'S APPROACH WANTING TO LOOK AT REVENUE AND RESOURCES THAT THE CITY HAS AND HOW WE WANT TO SPEND THEM.
IF WE SAY WE ARE GOING TO FUND AND PUT MONEY ASIDE TO SUPPORT OUR PENSION, THEN WE ARE GOING TO DO IT, PERIOD.
BUT TO SAY WHETHER THERE'S A CONFLICT, BECAUSE WE HAPPEN TO BE IN THE EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FUND, ALL EMPLOYEES THAT WORK FOR THE CITY, WORK FOR ME.
SO I'M VESTED IN MAKING SURE THAT THEY, WHETHER ON THE POLICE AND FIRE SIDE OR GENERAL EMPLOYEE SIDES, THEIR PENSIONS ARE MET.
SO I APPRECIATE THE COMMENT, BUT IT'S A LITTLE OFFENSIVE TO THINK THAT WE CAN'T DO BOTH.
I MAKE DECISIONS EVERY DAY THAT IMPACT ME AND EVERYBODY ELSE, BUT I DON'T DO THEM FOR MY BENEFIT OR TO AVOID DETRIMENT.
TO ME, I DO 'EM FOR THE BEST INTEREST OF THIS CITY.
AND SO THAT'S WHAT JACK IS DOING.
THAT'S WHAT EVERYBODY ON OUR TEAM IS DOING.
AND TO SAY IT, I THINK IT'S A GREAT SOUNDBITE, BUT IT'S NOT FACTUAL AND IT'S A LITTLE BIT DISCONCERTING.
BUT TODAY WE BROUGHT FORWARD WHAT WE BELIEVE THROUGH A LOT OF CONVERSATION.
THE FRAMEWORK IS THAT WE BELIEVE FINANCIALLY THAT WE CAN SUPPORT.
AND THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE ARE TODAY IN THE CONVERSATIONS.
AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE KERFUFFLE IS TODAY.
WE'RE JUST SHARING INFORMATION AND YOUR OPINION MATTERS AND IT COUNTS.
[01:15:01]
UH, BUT IT'S YOUR OPINION.UH, AND SO I APPRECIATE IT AND WE'RE RECEIVING THAT.
AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO ANSWERING MANY MORE QUESTIONS TODAY AND WITH THE FULL COUNCIL.
UM, I DO BELIEVE THAT CITY HALL, OUR CITY COUNCIL AND OUR CITY CITY LEADERSHIP IS FULLY COMMITTED TO COMING UP WITH A ROBUST PLAN AND FUNDING MECHANISM.
UM, THERE WAS A COMMENT MADE ABOUT HOW OUR PENSIONS TIED TO OUR RECRUITMENT.
AND, AND I'VE HEARD, I'VE HEARD SEVERAL, UH, COMMENTS ON THIS PRIOR FROM DPD LEADERSHIP AND, AND WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WAS CLEAR.
UM, FROM MY RECOLLECTION, I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE WAS NOT A CORRELATION BETWEEN RECRUITMENT AND OUR CURRENT PENSION.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK WITH, UH, PUBLIC SAFETY LEADERSHIP OR IF, IF THAT'S AN ACCURATE STATEMENT OR NOT, BUT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE, THE, HOW THEY'RE, HOW THE PENSION IS TIED TO OUR RECRUITMENT.
'CAUSE IT'S DIFFICULT TO, UH, HIRE OUR FIRST RESPONDERS.
YOU'RE DOING AN INCREDIBLE JOB.
BUT I THINK THERE, THERE'S SO MANY DIFFERENT REASONS ON WHY IT'S, WE'RE HAVING A DIFFICULTY TIME RECRUITING.
HOW MUCH IS ATTRIBUTED TO THE PENSION? THANK YOU FOR ASKING THAT.
UM, I DON'T HAVE A STATISTICAL ANSWER FOR THAT, BUT I, I WILL SAY THAT I, I THINK THAT, UM, CURRENT SALARIES STARTING PAY, UH, WHAT WE'RE OFFERING TO YOU WHEN YOU ARE WORKING, UH, HAS A GREATER IMPACT ON RECRUITMENT.
THIS IS MY OPINION, AND I, I'M JUST, I I WOULD HAVE TO WORK WITH, UH, HR TO, TO, TO GET STATISTICS TO BACK THAT UP.
BUT I, I THINK ENSURING THAT WE CONTINUE OUR MEET AND CONFER AGREEMENTS AS AN EXAMPLE, UH, MAKING SURE WE'RE MAKING ADJUSTMENTS, UH, TO STAY WITH MARKET, UH, FOR STARTING PAY SO THAT WE CAN RECRUIT, I, I THINK THE FACTS WOULD SHOW THAT THAT HAS A GREATER IMPACT THAN SOMETHING AN EMPLOYEE IS GOING TO GET 25 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD.
BUT I WOULD HAVE TO DO SOME ADDITIONAL RESEARCH TO VERIFY THAT.
UH, JACK, UH, THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION.
I, I THINK THIS WILL OVERVIEW OF WHAT'S GOING ON, BUT, UH, JUST GOING BACK, YOU KNOW, THE, EVERYONE KNOWS THE UNIFORM.
WE WANT TO HAVE A SAFE, UH, CITY, A SAFE COMMUNITY.
AND WE DOING EVERYTHING IN OUR POWER TO MAKE SURE WE DO HAVE A SAFE CITY.
AND WE STARTED THAT WAY BACK UNDER, UH, UH, MAYOR TONE LEOPARD.
AND VERY SOON THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE A MEETING TO CONFER.
AND WHEN WE STARTED MEETING CONFER, IT WAS ZERO COST.
AND THAT'S COST AN EXCELLENT EVERY YEAR, EVERY YEAR.
AND WE WENT BACK TWO OR THREE YEARS AGO, WE FILLED OUT OUR UNIFORM WAS BELOW PAY, SO WE INCREASE THAT PAY.
SO WE DO HAVE, UH, THE COUNSELING.
WE DO RECOGNIZE THAT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE COMPETITIVE WITH OTHER CITIES AROUND HERE.
BUT WE ALSO, WE KNEW WAY BACK THEN THAT WE HAVE A, A TRAINING FACILITY THAT EVERYONE WOULD TRAIN THE CITY OF DALLAS AND THEY LEAVE AND GO SOMEWHERE ELSE WITH OUR INVESTMENT IN OUR FACILITY.
SO WHEN WE LOOK AT WHAT'S GOING ON BETWEEN THE UNIFORM EMPLOYEES, AT THE END OF THE DAY WHEN THEY RETIRE, THEY WORK.
AND THEY BOTH WANT THEIR PENSION FUND.
THEY WANT THEIR RETIREMENT FUND.
AT THE END OF THE DAY, THEY BOTH WANT THEIR RETIREMENT FUND.
SO IT'S OUR RESPONSIBILITY, IT'S OUR FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY TO DO THAT.
I DID THAT WAY BACK IN 2015 WHEN I HIRED DELOITTE.
THEY SAY, HEY, DROP IS GONNA KILL YOU.
AND TODAY, 10 YEARS LATER, WE STILL TALKING ABOUT DROP.
LET'S FORGET ABOUT DROP, LET'S GO FORWARD AND TO MAKE SURE THE POLICE AND THE FIRE AND THE POLICE WANT TO WORK WITH CITY DALLAS.
AND WE AS A COUNSELOR AND OUR FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY HAVE A SAFE HAVEN AND GONNA MAKE SURE THEY GET PAID WHEN THEY WORK IN A FUNDRAISER RAISE.
AND WHAT WE ARE DOING TODAY IS NUMBER ONE, IN 2017, MAYOR RONALD WENT DOWN TO THE, TO THE STATE.
WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO IT COME UP WITH A PLAN.
IT NEVER SAID HOW MUCH MONEY THAT WE NEED TO PRESENT.
IS THAT A FIRST STATEMENT? CORRECT.
BRING US A PLAN, RIGHT? YES, SIR.
AND TO DO THIS PLAN, IT'S A FAMILY, IT'S A FAMILY PLAN.
IT'S NOT ONE-ON-ONE, IT'S NOT A CITY MANAGEMENT PLAN.
IT'S THREE DIFFERENT ENTITIES THAT'LL COME WITH A PLAN.
IT'S KELLY WITH A PENSION, THE ACTUARY IN THE CITY.
IS THAT A FIRST STATEMENT? YES, SIR.
I MEAN, THERE'S A LOT OF, UH, STAKEHOLDERS THAT ARE CONTRIBUTING TO THIS.
[01:20:01]
ENTITIES NEED TO BE ON THE SAME PAGE.I BELIEVE FOR, FOR US TO TAKE A PLAN IN AUSTIN, WE NEED TO BE OKAY.
SO THEREFORE ALL THREE NEED TO BE ON THE SAME PAGE.
YOU ON RECORD, YES OR NO? Y YES.
I MEAN, THAT WILL HELP ENSURE THAT THIS MOVES FORWARD.
OKAY? SO, SO THEREFORE, WE AS THE POLICY MAKERS, WE ARE LISTENING TO THE PENSION.
WE LISTEN TO THE ACTUARY AND WE LISTEN TO THE CITY MANAGER TO COME UP WITH A PLAN.
AND WHEN THEY GO DOWN IN NOVEMBER, THEY GOTTA PRESENT A PLAN.
THEY DON'T DISAGREE TO THE PLAN.
BUT RIGHT NOW, WE NEED HERE AND ALL YOUR RETIREMENT, WE NEED TO WORK TOGETHER AS ONE TO MAKE SURE NO ONE IS LEFT OUT.
BECAUSE YOU, AT THE END OF THE DAY, WHEN YOU RETIRE, YOU WANT YOUR MONEY.
NOW I KNOW DAKOTA, WE ARE SAYING RIGHT NOW, WELL, DO WE HAVE $1.5 BILLION TODAY? I DON'T THINK SO.
SO WE DON'T HAVE $1.5 BILLION TODAY TO WRITE A CHECK FOR $1.5 BILLION.
BUT WE ARE IN THE PROCESS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE MONETIZE OUR ASSET ONCE WE GET THERE TO PUT MORE MONEY IN THERE, DO WE CAN LOWER THERE QUICKER AND WE CAN GET A KOHLER QUICKER, WE GET A BENEFIT QUICKER.
SO YOU GOTTA PUT A TRUST IN THE POLICY MAKER.
WE ARE THE POLICYMAKER, WE THE CITY COUNCIL'S GOTTA MAKE THAT DECISION.
AND SO I DON'T WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE ALL GET THE CORRECT INFORMATION, THE CORRECT DATA, BUT WE ARE LOSING TIME IF WE DON'T COME UP WITH A PLAN.
SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT COMPLETING OUT THERE, UNIFORM POLICE, FIRE EMPLOYEE, Y'ALL ALL THERE.
BUT WE ARE GONNA DO IT IN, IN MY WORD, I'M GONNA DO IT.
I DID THE SAME THING WHEN I WAS ON THE TRUSTEE THAT WE KNOW WE GOTTA COME WITH A PLAN.
AND THAT'S WHAT THE STATE IS WAITING ON US TO COME WITH A PLAN.
SO IF WE DON'T COME WITH A PLAN, WE ARE IN A, IN A SITUATION.
BUT GOING TO THE POINT IS WITH A CITY MANAGER, THAT WE ALSO GOTTA PUT THIS IN OUR BUDGET.
AND I'M GLAD THE CITY MANAGER'S HERE BECAUSE NUMBER ONE, WE GOTTA REALIZE WHATEVER MONEY WE GOTTA COME UP WITH, WE'RE GONNA CUT SOMETHING.
IT MIGHT BE STREETS, IT MIGHT BE EMPLOYEES, YOU KNOW, IT MIGHT BE FURLOUGHED DAYS, IT MIGHT BE LIBRARY, IT MIGHT BE REC SUNDAY, IT MIGHT BE WHATEVER.
BUT WE GOTTA CUT SOMETHING IF, IF IN ORDER TO GET SOME MONEY.
SO WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO.
SO THAT'S OUR RESPONSIBILITY AS A POLICYMAKER, AND WE GOTTA FIGURE OUT WHAT WE GOTTA DO TO MAKE SURE TO GET DONE.
SO LET'S PUT IT OUT THERE AND BE STRAIGHT AND BE FORWARD.
DON'T THROW THE UNIFORM EMPLOYEES ON THE BUS.
WE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER WITH THAT.
UH, WE'RE GONNA DO THE LAST ROUND BECAUSE I KNOW WE GOT A, A EXECUTIVE SESSION, RIGHT? SO LET'S DO ONE.
UM, OKAY, SO ONE QUESTION THAT I DO HAVE IS, WHAT YEAR WOULD IT BE 70% FUNDED? I, I KNOW WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS, BUT REFRESH MY MEMORY, IF WE DID WHAT YOU'VE RECOMMENDED DOING THE ADDITIONAL, UH, INFUSION OF CASH.
SO IT WOULD STILL BE FUNDED OVER THE 30 YEAR PERIOD.
SO IF WE COULD LOOK AT SLIDE, I CAN'T REMEMBER.
I WAS GOING BACK THROUGH ALL OF THIS AND SLIDE 22.
YEAH, SO THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF A CASH, UH, INFUSION.
UH, IT'S STILL, UH, PUTTING $500 MILLION IN, IN FISCAL OR IN 2028 AS AN EXAMPLE, UH, WOULD LOWER THOSE OUTER YEARS.
YOU CAN SEE IN 2054 IT WOULD BE $78 MILLION AS OPPOSED TO IF WE DON'T HAVE A CASH INFUSION ON THE LEFT HAND CHART, IT'S A HUNDRED.
SO, BUT IF, WHEN WOULD THE ECOLA HIT? I, I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING OH, OH, I'M SORRY.
IS CAN WE GET TO ECOLA IN FIVE YEARS? I MEAN, AND, AND THAT'S KIND OF HOW YOU DO YOUR OWN BUDGETING AT YOUR HOUSE.
YOU KNOW, I'M NOT GONNA GO AND BUY SOMETHING NOW.
'CAUSE I KNOW THAT IN FIVE YEARS I CAN GET IT.
UM, AND SO THAT'S MY QUESTION IS I THINK THAT THE, THE, THE, THE ISSUE IS THAT WE'VE GOT, UM, YOU KNOW, FOLKS THAT WANTED TO GET A SOONER THAN LATER.
AND I THINK, AND, AND SO WHEN WOULD SOONER BE UNDER YOUR RECOMMENDATION? UH, YES MA'AM.
SO IN THE PRESENTATION THAT, UH, THE STUDY GROUP GAVE, AND I CAN'T, YEAH, THE STUDY GROUP GAVE ON DECEMBER THE 14TH, SLIDE NINE, UM, BASED ON THE CURRENT, UH, PATH WE'RE ON THE, WE WOULD BE 70% FUNDED IN ABOUT 2073.
IF WE HAD A $500 MILLION CASH INFUSION AT SOME POINT, WE WOULD HIT 70% FUNDING IN 2056.
[01:25:02]
OKAY.IF WE HAD A $1 BILLION CASH INFUSION, WE WOULD HIT AT 2044.
IF WE HAD 1.5, WE WOULD HIT IT IN 2036.
IF WE HAD 2 BILLION, WE WOULD HIT IT IN, IN THREE YEARS IN 2027.
SO, UM, SO WE CAN WORK TOWARDS SOME GOALS THERE, I THINK, AND, AND WORK THROUGH THAT.
BUT ALSO TOO, I MEAN, WHEN YOU LOOK AT, I THINK THAT WAS SAID THAT THE CITY WAS RESPONSIBLE, BUT ACCORDING TO HISTORY, MS, THEY JUST PULLED UP THE CHART, THE PAGE THAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT.
IF YOU JUST LOOK ACROSS WHERE IT'S 70% AND IT HITS EACH OF THOSE LINES, THAT WOULD SHOW YOU THE YEAR IT WOULD BE, AND THAT'S PROBABLY HARD TO READ ON THE SCREEN, BUT I I, YES, I CAN SHARE IT WITH YOU AGAIN.
BUT I MEAN, UM, WE DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS AS A MATTER OF FACT, DROP WAS CREATED BY ANOTHER ENTITY.
SO I THINK IT'S UNFAIR TO SAY THAT THE CITY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE STATE OF THIS FUND, THAT THERE WERE OTHER PARTIES INVOLVED.
SO I'M, I, I DON'T WANT YOU TO THINK THAT WE ARE FOCUSING ON MANAGEMENT AND WHO'S HERE.
WHEN THAT STATEMENT WAS SAID, THAT'S NOT COMING FROM EVERYBODY.
OKAY? BUT WHAT I'M PLEDGING TO DO IS TO FIX IT.
I DON'T WANNA KICK IT DOWN THE ROAD.
I DON'T WANT ANOTHER COUNCIL TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE OBLIGATED TO CREATE IS A PLAN.
AND I JUST DON'T, IT'S NOT HARD, BUT IT'S GONNA TAKE A LOT OF PEOPLE COMING TO THE TABLE TO BE WILLING TO DO THAT.
AND THAT IS MY PLEDGE TO ANY AND EVERY EMPLOYEE IS THAT THAT IS WHAT WE ARE, THAT WE ARE DOING, THAT I'M DOING.
SO, UM, AND I, AND WE CAN'T GIVE EVERYTHING TO EVERYBODY.
I FEEL LIKE THIS IS SHARK TANK AND WE'VE GOT A MILLION INVESTORS COMING TO US.
BUT THE, THE THING IS, IS I WANT A SOLID GOVERNANCE PLAN FOR EACH OF THE PENSION FUNDS.
AND I WANNA MAKE SURE ANY MONEY THAT WE GIVE THEM THERE IS OVERSIGHT OF THAT.
AND THAT WE ARE VERY, UM, UNDERSTANDING, MUTUALLY UNDERSTANDING THAT PEOPLE WILL BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE BECAUSE THIS IS NOT GONNA HAPPEN.
I'VE BEEN THROUGH IT WITH MR. ATKINS, UNFORTUNATELY.
AND, UM, IT'S, IT'S JUST NOT GONNA HAPPEN.
AND PEOPLE NEED TO BE PUT ON NOTICE.
UH, ADAM DU, I SEE YOU THERE ON VIRTUAL.
YOU GOT ANYTHING THAT'S, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
AND, UM, THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION, UH, JACK.
UM, I, I THOUGHT IT WAS VERY THOROUGH AND, UM, I, I THINK THAT WE ALL ARE IN AGREEMENT THAT WE HAVE, UH, UH, UH, WE HAVE TO ESTABLISH A, A PLAN AND WE HAVE TO, UM, BE INTENTIONAL ABOUT THAT.
I AGREE WITH THE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE FROM, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIS AND COUNCIL MEMBER BLACKMAN.
UM, I, I DO THINK THAT IT'S, UH, DANGEROUS RHETORIC TO, UM, MAKE IT, UH, SEEM AS IF WE HAVE TO CHOOSE FROM, UH, ADDRESSING, UM, THE PENSION FOR OUR, UH, CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES, UM, AND OUR, UM, UH, UNIFORMED OFFICERS, UM, A AS IF THEY AREN'T TWO DIFFERENT FUNDS.
AND, UM, IT, IT DOESN'T, UH, DIMINISH ONE VERSUS THE OTHER TO ALLOW FOR WHAT THE STATE LAW ALLOWS US TO DO.
UH, I THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO BE COMMITTED TO TAKE CARE OF ALL OF OUR EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT.
AND, UH, I, I HONESTLY DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT A LOT OF THE, UH, NARRATIVE WAS, UH, UH, UH, AND WHERE THIS PRESENTATION HAS GONE.
I THINK THIS IS, UM, WE ARE ESTABLISHING A PLAN.
WE'RE HEADED IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
I WANNA THANK YOU FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP, MR. CHAIR, UH, TO GET US GOING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
UM, I LOOK FORWARD TO HAVING THIS DISCUSSION WITH THE ENTIRE BODY, UH, NEXT WEEK.
AND, UM, AND, AND AGAIN, I JUST WANTED TO SAY, JACK, THANK YOU.
UM, BECAUSE I, I THINK THAT THIS, UM, GIVES ME A LOT BETTER, UH, UH, CLARITY.
IT GIVES A LOT MORE UNDERSTANDING, UM, OF THE WORK THAT HAS BEEN DONE, UH, FROM YOU ALL.
AND I THINK THAT IT, IT, IT CUTS, UM, BACK ON A LOT OF THE FEARMONGERING THAT UNFORTUNATELY WE'RE HEARING, UM, WHICH, WHICH SHOULD NOT, UH, BE THE CASE WHENEVER WE, UM, HAVE THESE OPTIONS AT OUR, UH, DISPOSAL.
I DO THINK THAT, UM, UH, IT IS IMPORTANT, UH, TO HIGHLIGHT A ONE THING THAT WAS MENTIONED THAT YOU SAID, JACK, WAS, UH, THAT WE WANNA MAKE SURE AND TAKE CARE OF THIS AT A LOCAL LEVEL AND NOT TURN TO THE STATE.
I, I CAN TELL YOU FROM DISCUSSION AFTER DISCUSSION AFTER DISCUSSION WITH, UH, MEMBERS OF OUR DELEGATION AT THE STATE LEVEL, UH, THAT HAS 100% BEEN, UM, THE DIRECTION THAT WE HAVE BEEN GIVEN AS LOCAL LEADERS, UH, FROM OUR STATE DELEGATION TO NOT CONTINUE TO HAVE THIS BE AN ISSUE, UH, THAT HAS TO BE TAKEN UP.
UH, SO, UM, I DO, I DO WANT TO THANK YOU FOR, UH, THE
[01:30:01]
PRESENTATION.I THINK THAT WE HAVE, UH, SOME, SOME HARD DECISIONS TO MAKE GOING FORWARD.
I DON'T THINK THERE'S A SILVER BULLET.
UM, THERE'S GOING TO NEED TO BE A LOT OF, UM, EFFORTS COMBINED FOR US TO MEET THIS.
BUT, UH, JUST AS COUNCIL MEMBER, UH, BLACKMAN JUST, UH, MENTIONED, WE HAVE OPTIONS, UH, THAT, UH, WE CAN CAN START TO, UH, KIND OF HONE DOWN A PLAN ON AND SEE IF WE CAN, UH, GET THIS COLA, UM, THAT MUCH FASTER FOR OUR UNIFORMED OFFICERS.
UH, AND, AND I, I, UH, I DON'T THINK THAT ONE, UH, PLAN NEEDS TO, UM, DEPEND ON THE OTHER, OR THAT THEY SHOULD BE HELD, UM, AS LEVERAGE OVER ONE ANOTHER.
UH, WE NEED TO TAKE CARE OF ALL OF OUR EMPLOYEES IN OUR CITY.
WE GONNA DO A LAST ROUND, YOU KNOW, ABOUT A MINUTE AND WE HAVE, UH, EXECUTIVE SESSION.
UH, MOST OF MY COMMENTS ARE ACTUALLY GONNA ADDRESS SOME OF THE THINGS THE CITY MANAGER SAID.
FIRST OFF, THERE AREN'T MASSIVE CUTS ASSOCIATED WITH AN APPROPRIATE CONTRIBUTION BECAUSE JUST EVEN THIS LAST BUDGET, WE INCREASED REVENUE OVER A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS.
WE HAVE THE MONEY TO MAKE AN APPROPRIATE CONTRIBUTION AND WE JUST HAVEN'T.
SECOND IS THAT WHILE YOU'RE RIGHT ABOUT STATE LAW AND THE COLA FOR THE POLICE FIRE PENSION FUND, THERE'S NOTHING THAT SAYS THAT THE MAXIMUM COLA HAS TO HAPPEN FOR ERF.
AND THAT IS WHAT'S HAPPENED FOR TWO YEARS IN A ROW.
SO ONE GROUP'S GETTING 5%, ONE GROUP'S GETTING NOTHING.
THE THIRD IS YOUR CONFUSION ABOUT WHY I AM TALKING ABOUT STAFFING IS ACT BECAUSE THE ACTUARIAL CONTRIBUTION IS DETERMINED BASED ON PROJECTIONS OF STAFFING.
THAT'S LITERALLY WHAT IT'S PREDICATED ON.
AND SO OUR ABILITY TO RETAIN STAFF, TO BE ABLE TO ATTRACT STAFF IS NECESSARY.
NUMBER FOUR, KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT A CHART THAT SAYS, WE'RE JUST GONNA ADD ANOTHER 20 MILLION THIS YEAR, BUT WE'RE GONNA ADD HUNDREDS OF MILLION IN THE FUTURE, THAT IS KICKING DOWN, THAT IS KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD.
AND I ABSOLUTELY WILL SAY, AND I HAVE SAID FROM THE VERY FIRST DAY I WAS A COUNCIL MEMBER, I THINK EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN MANAGEMENT DOES HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST BECAUSE THEY'RE A MEMBER OF THE ERF.
AND THERE'S A CIRCLE TO PROTECT IT.
AND THE COMMENT THAT HAS BEEN MADE TO ME MORE THAN ONCE BY EXECUTIVE STAFF IS THE PEOPLE WILL TAKE CARE OF THE POLICE AND FIRE.
I THINK THE, THE RESIDENTS OF DALLAS WILL CARE ABOUT ALL OF OUR EMPLOYEES AND WE CARE ABOUT ALL OF OUR EMPLOYEES, BUT THERE'S A GROUP THAT IS NOT BEING TAKEN CARE OF PROPERTY LAST FOR, FOR, UH, MY COLLEAGUE BLACKMAN.
UH, WE HAVE HAD MULTIPLE BRIEFINGS AT GPFM ON THIS, AND YOU'RE WELCOME TO GO BACK AND WATCH THOSE MEETINGS.
THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN MARINA, THANK YOU.
WE AROUND THIS HORSESHOE MIGHT NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SITUATION WE ARE IN, BUT SHOULD IT ALSO NOT BE ABOUT POINTING FINGERS TOWARDS ONE ANOTHER? AND I AGREE THAT WE DO NEED TO FIX THIS ONCE AND ALL AGAIN, WE'RE COMMITTED TO ALL OUR EMPLOYEES, BOTH CIVILIAN AND UNIFORM, AND WE SHOULD BE SUPPORTIVE AND COMMITTED TO ALL OUR EMPLOYEES.
AND I TRUST THAT WE WILL HAVE A SOLID PLAN BEFORE US SO THAT WE ARE NOT IN THIS SITUATION DOWN THE ROAD.
AND I JUST WANNA THANK STAFF, UH, FOR PROVIDING THE INFORMATION TODAY.
AND I LOOK FORWARD, UH, TO OUTCOMES THAT WILL, UM, AGAIN PUT THIS BEHIND US.
I THINK, UM, THE THINGS THAT NEEDED TO BE SAID HAVE BEEN SAID.
UH, I I JUST WANNA SAY, UH, THANK JACK FOR YOUR HARD WORK AND, AND THANK YOUR STAFF AND ALSO THANK HARRY ROGER.
BUT I ALSO WANNA TALK THANK ROBERT WALTER FOR, FOR YOUR WORK YOU'VE DONE AND BUILD AND, AND EVERYONE WHO, WHO CHIP IN.
YOU KNOW, WE, THIS BEEN GOING ON FOR SEVEN, EIGHT YEARS AND, AND WE ARE HERE TRYING TO, AS A FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY, OUR FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE TAKE CARE OF OUR EMPLOYEES WHO WORK FOR US.
AND, AND AND, AND I AM GONNA DO WHATEVER MY POWER AND I THINK WE ARE POLICYMAKERS IS GONNA DO, BUT WE LISTEN TO Y'ALL.
BUT WE DEFINITELY GOTTA COME WITH THIS PLAN.
UM, THERE IS A BUDGET DEAL, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE CITY OF DALLAS HAD DEFAULT ON ANY ITEM.
UH, MR. CITY MANAGERS HAVE THE CITY OF DALLAS THERE, DEFAULT ON THE PLAN.
A PLAN THAT WE MADE THAT WE DEFAULT ON SINCE WE SINCE THE HISTORY OF THE CITY OF DALLAS.
[01:35:01]
NO SIR.AND JUST REAL QUICK, ONE BRIEF STATEMENT AROUND JUST, I WANT TO USE THE SEMANTICS THAT I THINK WE'LL USE GOING FORWARD, UM, PARTICULARLY AROUND THIS NOTION OF KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD.
I WOULD DEFINE KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD AS NOT ADDRESSING THE ISSUE AND HAVING NO PLAN LAID OUT TO RESOLVE A PROBLEM AND SAY THAT WE'LL JUST FIGURE IT OUT AT SOME POINT WHAT WE'RE GOING TO COME FORWARD WITH, WHETHER IT IS A STAGGERED AND A PHASED STEP UP IN CONTRIBUTIONS.
AND THEN A COMMITMENT, UH, TO HONOR THE ACTUAL AREA OF DETERMINED CONTRIBUTION IS AN ACTUAL PLAN THAT WE WILL CLARIFY.
IT WOULD NOT BE QUALIFIED AS IN THE BUDGET PARLANCE AS KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD.
'CAUSE WE'LL HAVE A PLAN AND WE'LL LIVE UP TO THE PLAN.
SIMILAR TO YOUR QUESTION, WE'VE NEVER DEFAULTED AND NOT DONE WHAT WE HAVE SAID WE WERE GOING TO DO.
AND I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THE UNIFORM POLICE, HEY, WE GOT YOUR BACK.
I MEAN WE SITTING HERE, WE TALKING ABOUT A COLA.
UH, WE ARE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO, TO LIE TO YOU AND SAY WE GOT $1.5 BILLION TODAY.
WE DON'T HAVE $1.5 BILLION A TODAY, THE ASSET TO GET THERE IN FIRE AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, WE GONNA DO THAT NOW.
ONLY THING WE CAN SAY, NUMBER ONE, WE ARE GONNA MONETIZE THE ASSET.
THEY'RE GONNA TAKE SOME TIME TO PUT THOSE ASSET TOGETHER TO JUSTIFY HOW DO WE DO IT.
AND WE JUST NOT GONNA GO AHEAD TO FIRE OURSELVES AND START SELLING STUFF AND IF WE PUT OURSELVES IN TROUBLE, BUT WE GONNA DO EVERYTHING IN OUR POWER.
I THINK EVERYONE ON THIS COUNCIL TODAY THAT YOU HAVE THEIR DESIRE AND THEIR OPINION AND THEIR FATE THAT WE ARE GONNA SUPPORT YOU 100% WITH THAT.
THERE IS, IT IS NOW 4 39 ON JANUARY THE 11TH, THE HON COMMITTEE ON PENSION MEETING WILL NOW GO INTO CLOSED SESSION UNDER SECTION 5 5 1 0 7.
ONE OF THE TEXT OVER MEETING AT, ON THE FOLLOWING MATTER DESCRIBED ON TODAY'S AGENDA, SEEK THE ADVICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY REGARDING THE CITY PENSION MATTER AND THE CITY OF DALLAS VERSUS EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FUND OF THE CITY OF DALLAS.
THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON PENSION MEETING HAD COMPLETE ITS CLOSED SESSION UNDER SESSION 5 5 1 0.07, ONE OF THE TEXAS OPEN MEETING ACT AT FIVE 12 ON JANUARY 11TH.
WE HAVE RETURNED TO OPEN SESSION.
THE WE ARE MEETING ADJOURNED FOR THE AD HOC COMMITTEE.