* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.
          [Ad Hoc Committee on Pensions on May 24, 2024.]
          [00:00:03]
          OKAY, IT IS 3 0 8. 
          EXCUSE ME. 
          I'M GONNA CALL THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON THE PENSION TO ORDER. 
          CAN I GET A MOTION FOR THE PROOF OF THE MINUTES? SO MOVED. 
          SECOND. 
          ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. 
          AYE. 
          AYES. 
          CARRIE, THANK YOU FOR COMING THIS AFTERNOON. 
          WHAT WE WILL BE DISCUSSING TODAY WILL SHAPE THE FINANCIAL HEALTH OF OUR PENSION SYSTEM. 
          WE ARE STARTING FROM THE LAYOUT OF THE, OF THE 2017 FOUNDATION, AND NOW WE ARE PUTTING IN THE FRAME WORK TO COMPLETE THIS HOUSE. 
          THAT IS THE MAIN FOCUS FOR US TODAY, IS TO COMPLETE THE HOUSE. 
          TO COMPLETE THE HOUSE, YOU HAVE TO MAKE THE FAMILY WITHIN THE HOUSE FEEL SAFE AND SECURE. 
          THE AD HOC, COMMITTED ON PENSION. 
          WE'LL HEAR FROM STAFF TODAY. 
          A PLAN TO INCREASE FUNDING FOR THE DALLAS POLICE AND FIRE PENSION SYSTEM. 
          THE CITY PLAN WILL OUTLINE A FINANCIAL FEASIBLE SOLUTION, HAVE FALLEN STATE GUIDELINE, AND MAINTAINED ITS COMMITMENT. 
          WE HAVE ALWAYS, AND WE'LL CONTINUE TO FOLLOW THROUGH OUR COMMITMENT. 
          WE HAVE SAID THAT SINCE DAY ONE. 
          WE MUST ACT NOW TO READ OUR CITY COUNCIL AND OUR RESIDENT FOR THE UPCOMING BUDGET SEASON. 
          THAT INCLUDES A PLAN FOR OUR CURRENT AND FUTURE RETIREMENT. 
          WE KNOW ANY PLAN BROUGHT FORWARD IS ABOUT THE WELLBEING OF THE PEOPLE. 
          AND FOR US, THAT IS THE ENTIRE CITY WE SERVE, UNIFORM, CIVILIAN, AND TAXPAYER OF DALLAS. 
          WITH THAT, I WANT TO TURN OVER TO CITY MANAGER TOPO. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH, CHAIRMAN ATKINS. 
          AND I WANNA TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO THANK YOU PUBLICLY FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS. 
          AS THE CHAIRMAN STATED, UH, WE ARE COMMITTED TO PRESENTING A SOUNDING FUNDING PLAN TO THE TEXAS PENSION REVIEW BOARD, ENSURING THE FINANCIAL SECURITY OF THE MEN AND WOMEN OF OUR POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENT, ALL WHILE REMAINING AS A PHYSICALLY SOUND AND BALANCED CITY. 
          WE HAVE SAID SINCE DAY ONE THAT WE WILL BRING FORWARD A PLAN THAT MEETS BOTH OUR LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AND CONTINUES OUR COMMITMENT TO ALL OF DALLAS. 
          OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST FEW MONTHS, JACK ARLAN, OUR CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, ALONG WITH MANY CITY STAFF AND OUR CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, HAVE WORKED TO DEVELOP A LONG-TERM FUNDING PLAN FOR THE POLICE AND FOR OUR PENSION SYSTEM. 
          AND WITH THAT, I WILL TURN IT OVER TO JACK AT THIS TIME TO TAKE YOU THROUGH TODAY'S PRESENTATION AND THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION. 
          THANK YOU, JACK. 
          YEP. 
          THANK YOU, MS. TOLBERT. 
          UH, AS MENTIONED, MY NAME IS JACK ARLAN, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER FOR THE CITY. 
          UH, THE FIRST PRESENTATION, UH, IS A PENSION PLAN, COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT DISCUSSION, SO ON A DISCUSSION OF COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENTS OR COLAS. 
          AND I HAVE WITH ME JENNY CHEN, WHO IS, UH, WITH DELOITTE CONSULTING, SERVES AS AN ACTUARY FOR THE CITY. 
          UH, WE'VE WORKED VERY CLOSELY WITH, UH, HER AND HER TEAM THROUGH THIS PROCESS. 
          AND SO JENNY'S GONNA WALK US THROUGH A SHORT PRESENTATION ABOUT COLAS JUST AS A POINT OF REFERENCE, JUST TO HELP EDUCATE EVERYONE ABOUT WHAT A COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT IS AND HOW WE COMPARE WHAT SOME OF OUR PEER CITIES ARE DOING. 
          AND SO, UH, I'M JUST GONNA TURN IT TO JENNY TO WALK THROUGH THAT SHORT PRESENTATION. 
          THANK YOU, JACK. 
          THANK YOU EVERYONE FOR HAVING ME HERE TODAY. 
          OKAY. 
          SORRY. 
          UM, SO AS JACK MENTIONED, UM, THE PURPOSE OF THIS DISCUSSION HERE WOULD BE, UH, AROUND THE COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT. 
          IF YOU COULD GO ON THE NEXT SLIDE. 
          UM, ACTUALLY EARLIER THIS MONTH, THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE RETIREMENT ADMINISTRATORS ISSUED THIS ISSUE BRIEF AROUND COLAS. 
          AND I WANTED TO AT LEAST HIGHLIGHT SOME OF THE, UM, TRENDS THAT THEY NOTED IN THIS PUBLICATION. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, THEY MENTIONED THAT, YOU KNOW, THE PURPOSE OF THE COLA, AS WE KNOW, IS TO OFFSET TO SOME EXTENT THE INCREASES IN INFLATION AND HOW THAT IMPACTS RETIREMENT INCOME. 
          BUT IT IS EXPENSIVE. 
          UM, AND THE ESTIMATED COST OF COLA, THAT'S ABOUT HALF OF WHAT CPI IS. 
          IN GENERAL, THE ESTIMATE IS THAT IT INCREASED 11% OF COST TO THE PENSION PLAN. 
          UM, SO IT IS AN EXPENSIVE BENEFIT. 
          HOWEVER, UM, THEY DID MENTION THAT IT'S IMPORTANT TO BALANCE THEN THREE KEY AREAS, UM, BENEFIT ADEQUACY, AFFORDABILITY OF THE BENEFIT, AS WELL AS SUSTAINABILITY OF THE PLAN. 
          UM, IF YOU LOOK TO THE LEFT, UM, YOU'LL SEE THAT, YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF NATIONAL PUBLIC PENSION PLANS, THE TRENDS SINCE 2009. 
          [00:05:01]
UM, IN THE MAP, YOU'LL NOTE THAT THE COLORS THAT ARE IN PEACH, UM, IT'S 17 STATES WHO HAVE CHANGED COLAS THAT AFFECT CURRENT RETIREES. 
          SO THAT'S THE MA. 
          THE MAJORITY OF THE CHANGES, UM, HAS BEEN, YOU KNOW, IMPACTS RETIREES AS WELL AS CURRENT OR NEW HIRES. 
          UM, THERE'S MINORITY ONLY IMPACTS COLA SOME PROVISIONS FOR HIRES ONLY. 
          AND THIS IS ALL IN AN EFFORT TO CONTAIN COSTS AND ENSURE THAT PUBLIC PENSIONS PLANS ARE SUSTAINABLE. 
          UM, IN THE LONG RUN, IN THE TABLE ON THE RIGHT, YOU'LL SEE KIND OF A DISTRIBUTION OF, UM, COLA PROVISIONS. 
          YOU'LL NOTE THAT, UM, 74 OF THE 101 SURVEY, THEY DO PROVIDE AUTOMATIC COLAS AND THE MAJORITY OF COLA IS LINKED TO INFLATION. 
          UM, BUT TO PUT THIS IN PERSPECTIVE, THE MEDIAN FUNDED RATIO FOR STATE PUBLIC PENSION PLANS IS 77%, AND THAT'S VALUED USING A DISCOUNT RATE OF 7%. 
          SO TO SOME EXTENT, THESE PLANS CAN AFFORD AND CAN SUSTAIN AN AUTOMATIC COLA, UM, IN THEIR PROVISIONS. 
          SO I MENTIONED THE, THE INVESTMENT RETURN ASSUMPTION OF 7% TOGETHER WITH THE FUNDED RATIO, BECAUSE REALLY ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT ASSUMPTIONS WHEN DETERMINING FUNDED RATIOS, IT IS THE INVESTMENT RETURN ASSUMPTION USED FOR THE PLAN. 
          SO TO THE EXTENT THAT INVESTMENT RETURNS ARE DECREASED, FUNDED RATIO WOULD THEN PROJECT IT TO DECREASE AND CONTRIBUTIONS ON A PROJECTION BASIS WOULD INCREASE. 
          SO THIS IS A KEY ASSUMPTION THAT GOES INTO PROJECTIONS OF COST AND, UM, FOR PENSION PLANS. 
          SO IF YOU COULD GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. 
          UM, HERE IT OUTLINES, UH, THE COLA PROVISIONS FOR DPFP AS WELL AS ERF. 
          UM, YOU ALL ARE PROBABLY FAMILIAR WITH THIS. 
          THE CURRENT FUNDED RATIO FOR DPFP IS 39% AT A DISCOUNT RATE OF 6.5%. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, PRIOR TO HOUSE BILL 31 58, THERE WAS AUTOMATIC 4% GUARANTEED COLA FOR TIER ONE EMPLOYEES. 
          AFTER HOUSE BILL 31 58. 
          THIS WAS CHANGED TO AN AD HOC COLA THAT'S BASED ON, UM, FIVE YEAR AVERAGE RETURN ON ASSETS. 
          AND, AND WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT, YOU KNOW, IN THE DETERMINATION OF THIS FUNDED RATIO, THE FUNDS ACTUARY INCLUDED THIS ASSUMPTION RELATED TO, UM, COLAS. 
          SO THEY'RE ASSUMING ONE AND A HALF PERCENT COLA WILL BE PAID ONCE THE PLAN REACHES 70% FUNDING. 
          NOW THIS INCLUSION OF THE COLA ASSUMPTION INCREASES THE ACTUALLY DETERMINED CONTRIBUTIONS THAT ARE BEING PROJECTED OUT. 
          AND THIS IMPLIES THAT THE CITY IS PREPAYING FOR FUTURE AD HOC COLAS THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE GRANTED. 
          UM, FOR PURPOSES OF ERF, THEIR CURRENT FUNDED RATIO IS 73% AND THEIR DISCOUNT RATE IS 7.25%. 
          UM, THE, THE LAST CHANGE THAT THEY HAD MADE RELATED TO BENEFIT PER PROVISIONS WAS AROUND THE TIER A AND TIER B, WHERE COLA, YOU KNOW, INSTEAD OF A MAXIMUM OF 5% FOR TIER B, IT IS, UM, 3%. 
          SO BECAUSE RFS COLA IS AUTOMATIC, IT MAKES SENSE TO ACCOUNT AND BUDGET FOR THE COLAS THAT ARE ANTICIPATED TO BE PAID EACH YEAR. 
          UM, AND THAT, THAT HAVING THAT ASSUMPTION, UM, UM, IS, IS REASONABLE. 
          MOVING ON TO THE NEXT SLIDE. 
          UM, THIS IS JUST A GRAPH THAT SHOWS THE HISTORY OF COLA FOR DPFP AND ERF. 
          UM, LOOKING AT A 24 YEAR AVERAGE FOR DPFP, AVERAGE COLA HAS BEEN ABOUT 2.7%, ERF ALSO ABOUT THAT MUCH. 
          UM, SO YOU'LL SEE THAT FOR DPFP COLA DROPPED TO 0% IN 2017 AS A RESULT OF HOUSE BILL 31 58, AND TO HIGHLIGHT A COUPLE OF PEER CITIES. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, IN, IN RECENT YEARS, IN ADDITION TO THE NATION, YOU KNOW, NATIONALLY THERE HAS BEEN CHANGES IN BENEFITS. 
          PEER CITIES HAVE ALSO CHANGED, UM, THEIR COLA STRUCTURE TO REDUCE IT AND ALSO INCREASE THE GOVERNANCE AND APPROVAL PROCESS IN ORDER TO PAY FOR A COLA. 
          SO STARTING ON THE MOST LEFT, UM, THE CITY OF FORT WORTH, THE FIRE, POLICE AND GENERAL PLANS ARE ALL IN ONE PLAN. 
          UM, THEIR FUNDED RATIO IS 55%, AND IN 2011, UM, THEY ELIMINATED COLA FOR ALL NEW HIRES. 
          AND IT HAS A STAGGERING, EFFECTIVE DATE, UM, STARTING FROM 2011 FOR GENERAL EMPLOYEES, 13 FOR POLICE, AND 15 FOR FIRE. 
          IN 2018, THEY FURTHER REDUCED, UM, COLA BENEFITS. 
          THEY ELIMINATED COLA FOR SERVICE THAT IS ACCRUED AFTER JULY, 2019. 
          AND THEY ALSO CHANGED THE COLA TO BE A VARIABLE COLA. 
          UM, IN TERMS OF THE AMOUNT THAT GETS PAID 
          [00:10:02]
IN THE MIDDLE COLUMN IS THE CITY OF HOUSTON. 
          UM, THE FIRE AND POLICE PLAN IS 96%, 89% FUNDED CURRENTLY, UM, PRIOR TO 2017, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE THIS AUTOMATIC COLA, UM, FOR FIRE, IT'S 3%. 
          UM, FOR POLICE, IT IS 80% OF CPI IN 2017, DUE TO, UM, PLANS, FINANCIAL HARDSHIP, THEY, UM, SUSPENDED COLA FOR THREE YEARS FOR RETIREES WHO ARE UNDER AGE 70. 
          SO FROM 2017 TO 2020, THERE WAS NO COLA PAID IN THOSE YEARS AFTER 2020 COLA REMAINS TO BE AUTOMATIC, BUT IT HAS NOW CHANGED TO BE TIED TO THE AVERAGE RETURN OF ASSETS LESS 4.75 OR 5% FOR THE HOUSTON GENERAL EMPLOYEE PLAN. 
          UM, THE CURRENT FUNDED RATIO IS 69%. 
          THEIR COLA HAS ALWAYS BEEN AUTOMATIC PRIOR TO 2017, UM, YOU'LL SEE THAT THEY'VE STARTED, UM, GRADING DOWN THE MAXIMUM COLA THAT CAN BE RECEIVED DEPENDING ON HIRE DATES. 
          AND IN 2017, UM, ACTUALLY, UM, PRIOR TO THAT, SO FOR THOSE HIRED ONE ONE 2008, UM, THE PLAN WAS AMENDED TO NOT RECEIVE S FOR THOSE EMPLOYEES. 
          IN 2017, THEY ACTUALLY IMPROVED UPON THE BENEFIT FOR, FOR EMPLOYEES WHO ARE HIRED AFTER 2008, THEY'RE NOW RECEIVING A COLA. 
          AND THE COLA PROVISION IS NOW, YOU KNOW, 50% OF THE AVERAGE RETURN, LESS 5%. 
          UM, SO THAT UP TO A MAXIMUM OF TWO. 
          SO SOME OF THE EMPLOYEES IN HOUSTON, JUST DEPENDING ON THE HIGHER DATE, THEY HAD A REDUCTION IN COLA BENEFIT. 
          AND FOR OTHERS IT WAS AN IMPROVEMENT SINCE THEY ARE NOW GETTING COALESCED. 
          ON THE LAST COLUMN IS THE CITY OF AUSTIN, UM, WHERE, YOU KNOW, YOU'LL SEE THE FUNDED RATIO RANGES FROM 60% TO 87%. 
          UM, ALL OF THESE COLAS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AD HOC. 
          UM, THE POLICE PLAN HAS HAD NO COLA SINCE 2007. 
          UM, THE GENERAL EMPLOYEES HAVE NOT HAD A COLA SINCE 2002. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, IN THE APPENDIX WILL HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAILS AROUND, UM, THE PROVISIONS OF THESE PLANS. 
          MOVING ALONG TO THE NEXT SLIDE. 
          SO HERE WE HAVE A GRAPH OF THE FUNDED RATIO FOR THE PAST 10 YEARS. 
          FOR EACH OF THE PLANS THAT I MENTIONED. 
          UM, YOU'LL SEE THAT IN RED, THAT'S DPFP. 
          AND IN GENERAL, YOU KNOW, THE, THE PEER CITIES HAVE HAD FUNDED RATIOS THAT ARE BETTER THAN DPFP, AND YET YOU SEE THAT THEY HAVE CONTINUALLY BEEN REDUCING THE COLA BENEFITS THAT ARE PAID, UM, INTO EMPLOYEES AND RETIREES. 
          SO IN GENERAL, THERE'S THIS TREND OF REDUCTIONS IN COLAS OVER THE YEARS. 
          UM, ON THE NEXT SLIDE, I THINK IT'S THE APPENDIX, BUT I WANTED TO FLIP OVER TO IF YOU COULD GO ONE MORE SLIDE. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, WE'VE OUTLINED IN THIS APPENDIX MORE DETAILS FOR YOUR REFERENCE RELATED TO EACH OF THE PLANS, UM, PROVISIONS. 
          BUT I WANTED TO ALSO HIGHLIGHT SAN ANTONIO FIRE AND POLICE. 
          THEIR CURRENT FUNDED RATIO IS 89%. 
          THEY PROVIDE AUTOMATIC COAL BASED ON, UM, 75% OF CPI. 
          THEY ALSO HAVE THIS PROVISION WHERE THE BOARD CAN APPROVE A 13TH OR 14TH CHECK. 
          SO WHENEVER THE FIVE YEAR AVERAGE RETURN EXCEEDS, UM, THE ASSUMED INVESTMENT RETURN BY A HUNDRED BASIS POINTS, THIS IS WHEN THEY ARE, THE BOARD CAN CONSIDER APPROVING A 13TH CHECK. 
          IF IT IS OVER 300 BASIS POINTS, THEN THEY CAN CONSIDER FOR APPROVING AN, YOU KNOW, AN ADDITIONAL 14TH CHECK. 
          UM, SO THOSE WERE THE HIGHLIGHTS. 
          UM, LET ME KNOW IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. 
          AND MAYOR PROTO, IF YOU'D LIKE, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GO INTO THE OTHER PRESENTATIONS AND THEN IF THERE'S QUESTIONS FOR EITHER JENNY OR MYSELF. 
          SO YOUR SECOND, UH, ITEM FOR TODAY WAS A PRESENTATION THAT WE HAD PLANNED ON THE EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FUND, BUT WE'RE DELAYING THAT OR DEFERRING THAT TO YOUR NEXT MEETING, UH, AS, UH, SOME ADDITIONAL TIMES NEEDED ON THAT BEFORE WE BRING IT BACK BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE. 
          SO I'LL MOVE ON TO THE DALLAS POLICE AND FIRE PENSION SYSTEM, THE FUNDING, SOUNDNESS RESTORATION PLAN UPDATE, AND SO ON SLIDE TWO, JUST FOR PURPOSE OF THE PRESENTATION TODAY, UH, AGAIN, WE WANTED TO PROVIDE AN UPDATE OF WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW. 
          CONTINUE OUR DISCUSSION ABOUT CHIRON, UH, THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THEY PROVIDED TO THIS COMMITTEE IN NOVEMBER AND IN FEBRUARY. 
          AND JUST AS A REMINDER, OF COURSE, CHIRON IS THAT INDEPENDENT ACTUARY THAT WAS, UH, SELECTED BY THE PENSION REVIEW BOARD UNDER CONTRACT WITH UH, DPFP. 
          AND THEN WE ALSO TODAY WANTED TO LAY OUT, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS, UH, FROM CITY STAFF OF WHAT WE BELIEVE SHOULD BE INCORPORATED INTO A, UH, FUNDING SOUNDLESS RESTORATION PLAN. 
          SO ON SLIDE THREE, JUST AS BACKGROUND, AND WE'VE SAID THIS BEFORE, 
          [00:15:01]
BUT FOR THOSE THAT MAY BE LISTENING FOR THE FIRST TIME, THE PENSION REVIEW BOARDS, UH, DOES HAVE FUNDING GUIDELINES THAT REQUIRE, UH, THAT WE ADDRESS, UH, BOTH NORMAL COST AND ANY UNFUNDED ACTUARIAL ACCRUED LIABILITY, UH, OVER A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED 30 YEARS. 
          AS OF JANUARY 1ST OF 23, THE DALLAS POLICE AND FIRE PENSION FUND IS PROJECTED TO BE FULLY FUNDED IN 82 YEARS, WHICH CLEARLY EXCEEDS PRBS 30 YEAR REQUIREMENT. 
          AND AS WE KNOW, THE FUNDING, UH, PERCENTAGE DECREASED FROM 41%, UH, IN 22, UH, TO 39% IN 23. 
          THOSE CHARTS THAT ARE NORMALLY PART OF MY BACKGROUND, I PUT IN THE APPENDIX BECAUSE YOU'VE SEEN THEM SO MANY TIMES. 
          I JUST MOVED IT TO THE APPENDIX. 
          UM, AND CONTINUING WITH BACKGROUND, WE HAVE BEEN WORKING REGULARLY WITH, UH, STAFF FROM THE DALLAS POLICE AND FIRE PENSION FUND, UH, TRYING TO COME TO SOME TYPE OF CONSENSUS, UH, HOPING TO COME UP WITH A PLAN, UH, TO SUBMIT TO THE PRB IN AUGUST OR SEPTEMBER. 
          ON THE NEXT SLIDE, FOUR, UH, AGAIN, CHIRON, THE INDEPENDENT ACTUARY THAT WAS SELECTED, UH, PRESENTED RECOMMENDATIONS TO YOU, UH, PRELIMINARILY IN NOVEMBER AND THEN IN ON FEBRUARY THE EIGHTH. 
          THIS IS THEIR CHART. 
          I HAVE LIFTED IT FROM THEIR PRESENTATION AND PROVIDED IT HERE, HAD THREE PRIMARY RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          FIRST AND FOREMOST IS TO ADOPT AN ACTUARILY DETERMINED CONTRIBUTION MODEL, AND THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR ACHIEVING THE, UH, FULL FUNDING IN 30 YEARS. 
          THAT IS A REQUIREMENT OF THE PENSION REVIEW BOARD. 
          THE TWO ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS THAT CHIRON MADE, WHICH WE DO NOT BELIEVE, UH, ARE NECESSARY TO MEET THE PRBS, UH, REQUIREMENTS OR GUIDELINES, IS TO REDUCE THE UNIFORM, UH, EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION RATE AS THE FUNDING IMPROVES. 
          AND THIRD, TO PROVIDE SOME TYPE OF COLA EARLIER THAN THE PROVISIONS THAT ARE OUTLINED IN HOUSE BILL 31, UH, 58 ON SLIDE FIVE. 
          AGAIN, UH, THE PRB REQUIRES FULL FUNDING WITHIN 30 YEARS. 
          UH, CHIRON UH, PROPOSED, UH, MODELS TO ACHIEVE THAT AND WE'RE FULLY COMMITTED TO IT. 
          BUT AGAIN, THE TWO ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS THAT I SHOWED ON SLIDE FOUR ARE ABOVE AND BEYOND, UH, WHAT IS, UH, REQUIRED BY THE HOUSE BILL ON SLIDE SIX. 
          UH, SO I WILL, I WILL WALK THROUGH EACH OF THE THREE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT CHIRON MADE ON THE NEXT SEVERAL SLIDES. 
          STARTING ON SLIDE SIX, THE ACTUARILY DETERMINED CONTRIBUTION SCENARIOS THAT CHIRON PRESENTED. 
          THEY PRESENTED FIVE DIFFERENT SCENARIOS. 
          UH, THEY TOLD THIS BODY THAT ALL FIVE ARE REASONABLE, AND ALL FIVE MEET THE PRB REQUIREMENTS TO BE FULLY FUNDED IN 30 YEARS. 
          UH, THEY RANGED FROM A TRADITIONAL MODEL, UH, THREE YEAR STEP UP AND STEP DOWN, FIVE YEAR STEP UP AND STEP DOWN. 
          THEN A THREE YEAR STEP UP AND A FIVE YEAR STEP UP CITY STAFF RECOMMENDS THE FIVE YEAR STEP UP, UH, WITHOUT THE STEP DOWN. 
          UH, THIS, WE BELIEVE ALLOWS US THE MOST, UH, THE, THE GREATEST ABILITY TO MANAGE THE, UH, INCREASES WITHIN OUR BUDGET WHILE RECOGNIZING THE OTHER BUDGET NEEDS AND LIMITATIONS THAT WE HAVE ON THE CITY'S BUDGET. 
          ON SLIDE SEVEN, UH, THE NUMBERS RELATED TO THE FIVE SCENARIOS THAT CHIRON PRESENTED OR LAID OUT, UH, AND THE 2024 IS THE YEAR WE'RE IN NOW, WE WILL CONTRIBUTE $185 MILLION TO THE PLAN. 
          AND THEN YOU CAN SEE FOR 2025 THROUGH 2025 HOW THOSE, UH, CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE CITY INCREASE EVERY YEAR. 
          AND THERE'S A COLUMN FOR EACH OF THE SCENARIOS THAT SHOWS THE YEAR OVER YEAR INCREASE. 
          THE TWO ON THE FAR RIGHT, UH, THE FAR RIGHT IS THE CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION, WHICH IS THE FIVE YEAR STEP UP. 
          AND THEN NEXT TO THAT, UH, JUST TO THE LEFT OF THAT IS DALLAS POLICE AND FIRE PENSION STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, UH, BASED ON THEIR PRESENTATION TO THEIR BOARD ON MAY THE NINTH, UH, WHERE THEY RECOMMENDED THREE YEAR, OF COURSE, THEY'VE SAID BEFORE, AND I UNDERSTAND THIS, THE, IF WE COULD AFFORD A TRADITIONAL MODEL WHERE WE IMMEDIATELY WENT TO THE A DC, UH, THAT'S THE MODEL ON THE FAR LEFT. 
          UH, THEY, BUT DPFP DID ACKNOWLEDGE, RECOGNIZING THAT THE CITY'S BUDGET, UH, MAY NOT ALLOW THAT. 
          SO THE TWO ON THE FAR RIGHT HAND SIDE, THE THREE YEAR STEP UP, PRESENTED BY DPFP, THEIR RECOMMENDATION, THE ONE ON THE FAR RIGHT CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION, THE FIVE YEAR STEP UP. 
          AND YOU CAN SEE THE DIFFERENCES IN THE YEAR OVER YEAR INCREASE. 
          UH, OUR RECOMMENDATION, MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD INCREASE FROM $185 MILLION TO 202, THEN UP TO 220 AND UP TO 238 AND SO FORTH. 
          AND THOSE YEAR OVER YEAR INCREASES RANGE FROM THE 17 MILLIONS TO THE $20.5 MILLION RANGE, WHICH WE HAVE SAID SINCE THE BEGINNING OF GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS THAT WE FELT LIKE THAT WAS A RANGE 
          [00:20:01]
THAT WE COULD MANAGE WITHIN OUR BUDGET. 
          THE THREE YEAR STEP UP, UH, THE INCREASES GO UP, UH, $26 MILLION THE FIRST YEAR, 26 MILLION THE SECOND YEAR, AND 27 MILLION THE THIRD YEAR. 
          AND IT'S A MUCH FASTER, UH, APPROACH, UH, PUTTING MORE MONEY INTO THE FUND QUICKER. 
          THE CITY STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS LOWER IN FISCAL YEARS, 25, 26, 27, AND 28. 
          BUT ONCE YOU GET TO YEAR, UH, FISCAL YEAR 29, THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION IS ACTUALLY A HIGHER ANNUAL CONTRIBUTION THAN WHAT WOULD BE IN THE THREE YEAR STEP UP. 
          SO THAT IS THE RECOMMENDATION RELATED TO CHIRON'S, UH, FIRST, UH, AREA THAT THEY, UH, TALKED TO YOU ABOUT, UH, THE A DC, AGAIN, THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS THE FIVE YEAR STEP UP, SLIDE EIGHT. 
          THE SECOND, UH, RECOMMENDATION FROM CHIRON WAS TO, UH, REDUCE, UH, UNIFORM EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTIONS, UM, PRIOR TO, UH, US ACHIEVING FULL FUNDING, AT WHICH TIME WE WOULD BE REDUCING THE EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION RATE. 
          CHIRON, UH, LAID OUT A PROPOSAL THAT WOULD REDUCE THAT SOONER, UH, DECREASING, UH, THEM OVER TIME, DECREASING THE EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION RATE OVER TIME, WHICH SIMPLY SHIFTS THE COST TO THE CITY. 
          IF YOU, THE EMPLOYEE REDUCES THEIR CONTRIBUTION, THE CITY HAS TO INCREASE OUR CONTRIBUTION TO PICK UP THAT DIFFERENCE. 
          UH, YOU CAN SEE IN THE TABLE ON THE FAR RIGHT WHAT THE EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION RATES HAVE BEEN. 
          THEY WERE OBVIOUSLY MUCH LOWER PRIOR TO HOUSE BILL, UH, 31 58. 
          AND SINCE 2018, THEY HAVE BEEN 14%. 
          SO THEY ARE AT A HIGHER UH, RATE THAN THEY WERE PRIOR TO HOUSE BILL 31 58. 
          UH, WE DO NOT RECOMMEND ANY CHANGES AT THIS POINT IN TIME. 
          UH, THE RECOMMENDATION FROM, UH, DPFP UH, STAFF ON MAY THE NINTH WAS NOT, UH, TO, UH, ADDRESS THIS AT THIS TIME, EITHER. 
          UH, SOMETHING THAT COULD BE ADDRESSED IN THE FUTURE, BUT NO CHANGE, UH, IN EITHER OF OUR RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO THE EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION. 
          SO MOVING ON TO SLIDE NINE, THE THIRD, UH, RECOMMENDATION FROM CHIRON, WHICH IS THE ONE THAT WE'VE SPENT MOST OF OUR TIME TALKING ABOUT IS, UH, COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT. 
          AND THANK YOU, UH, JENNY FOR, UH, GIVING US SOME BACKGROUND AND SOME, UH, COMPARISONS TO WHAT OTHER, UH, FUNDS ARE DOING. 
          ON SLIDE NINE, UH, JUST AGAIN, PRIOR TO HOUSE BILL 31 58, UH, DPFP HAD A 4% SIMPLE COLA, UH, IF HIRED BEFORE ONE ONE 2007. 
          AND IT WAS AN AD HOC COLA OF UP TO 4% OF HIRED AFTER 12 31 0 6. 
          AND THEN IN ADDITION TO THAT, THERE WERE DROP ACCOUNTS THAT HAD, UH, GUARANTEED RATES OF RETURN. 
          SO ON THE TABLE ON THE RIGHT, YOU CAN SEE WHAT COLA WAS PROVIDED, UH, TO THE FUND, UH, OR TO THE RETIREES, UH, BACK TO 2001 THROUGH 2016, WHERE IT WAS 4% EVERY SINGLE YEAR. 
          UH, AND IT HAS DROPPED TO ZERO BASED ON HOUSE BILL 31 58 IN 2017. 
          SO IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PAGE, HOUSE BILL 31 58 LAID OUT SOME NEW PARAMETERS FOR HOW COLA WOULD BE PROVIDED IN FUTURE YEARS. 
          AND ONE OF THE CONDITIONS WOULD BE THAT THE FUND WOULD BE AT 70% FUNDED. 
          CURRENTLY THE FUND IS AT 39.1% FUNDED. 
          UM, WE EXPECT THAT THE FUND WILL ACHIEVE IF, IF WE GO TO AN A DC MODEL AND WE'RE PUTTING IN MORE MONEY INTO THE FUND, THAT WILL, UM, ALLOW FOR THE FUND TO REACH 70% FUNDING IN 2046. 
          AT THAT TIME, AN AD HOC COLA WOULD GO INTO PLAY. 
          UH, IT WOULD BE BASED ON INVESTMENT RETURNS, NOT ON INFLATION. 
          UH, IT WOULD BE A FIVE YEAR AVERAGE RATE OF RETURN MINUS FIVE FOR A MAXIMUM OF 4%. 
          THERE IS IN THE APPENDIX ON PAGE 33 THROUGH 36, SOME INFORMATION AND SOME COMPARISONS ON RATES OF RETURNS WITH OTHER FUNDS. 
          UH, BUT THE REQUIREMENT HERE FOR, UH, DPFP WOULD HAVE A FIVE YEAR AVERAGE RATE OF RETURN MINUS FIVE FOR A MAXIMUM OF 4%. 
          WHAT IS IN THE ACTUARIAL ASSUMPTIONS IS A 1.5% COLA. 
          AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS THEY HAVE ASSUMED A RATE OF RETURN OF 6.5%. 
          SO THAT'S WHAT THEY BELIEVE OVER THE LONG TERM THAT THEY WILL AVERAGE AT 6.5% ON THEIR RATE OF RETURN. 
          6.5 MINUS FIVE IS 1.5. 
          SO THAT IS WHAT THEY'VE ASSUMED IN THE ACTUARIAL NUMBERS, WHAT THAT COLA WOULD BE BEGINNING IN 2046. 
          SO ON THE NEXT SLIDE, ON SLIDE 10, STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO ECOLA. 
          SO, CITY STAFF DOES RECOMMEND THAT WE CONTINUE TO COMPLY WITH HOUSE BILL 31 58, UH, IN REGARDS TO, UH, REQUIRING THE FUND TO BE 70% FUNDED. 
          HOWEVER, UH, STAFF, STAFF DOES SUPPORT SOME MODIFICATIONS TO, UH, THE METHODOLOGY. 
          [00:25:01]
AGAIN, THE CURRENT METHODOLOGY IS THAT FIVE YEAR AVERAGE, UH, RETURN LESS 5%. 
          AN ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE TO BASE IT ON C-P-I-C-P-I TO LOOK AT A INFLATION. 
          AND AGAIN, NOT TO EXCEED 1.5% PER YEAR. 
          AND THE REASON THAT'S THE NUMBER THAT WE, UH, DROPPED IN HERE IS BECAUSE THAT DOESN'T CHANGE THE ACTUARIAL ASSUMPTIONS. 
          THEY'VE ALREADY MODELED IT THAT WAY. 
          SO WE COULD CHANGE IT FROM BASING IT ON RETURNS TO BASING IT ON INFLATION. 
          AND AT 1.5% THAT WOULD, WOULD NOT CHANGE THE NUMBERS. 
          SO A FUTURE ADJUSTMENT THAT WE BELIEVE IS WORTH CONSIDERING IS INCREASING THAT FROM 1.5% TO 3%. 
          SO CPI UP TO 3% INSTEAD OF 1.5%. 
          NOW, I HAVE A CONTINGENT HERE THAT'S CONTINGENT UPON US IDENTIFYING SOME OTHER FUNDING SOURCES, UH, EITHER AN ONGOING REVENUE STREAM OR US MONETIZING ASSETS, SELLING PENSION OBLIGATION BONDS FOR A CASH INFUSION. 
          I BELIEVE THAT WITH THE NUMBERS THAT WE'VE LAID OUT NOW, THE FIVE YEAR STEP UP, UH, THE 1.5% COLA IS, IS IN THOSE NUMBERS. 
          UH, AND WE ARE COMMITTED TO WORKING THAT WITHIN WORKING TOWARDS THAT, WITHIN OUR EXISTING FUNDING STRUCTURE. 
          OUR EXISTING REVENUES TO GO HIGHER THAN THAT TO GO UP TO 3%, WE WOULD NEED TO IDENTIFY, OUR RECOMMENDATION IS THAT WE WOULD NEED TO IDENTIFY SOME ADDITIONAL FUNDING SOURCE. 
          SLIDE 11 IS DALLAS POLICE AND FIRE PENSION STAFFS RECOMMENDATION RELATED TO THE COLA. 
          UH, THEY HAVE PROPOSED TO CHANGE IT FROM AN AD HOC COLA TO AN AUTOMATIC COLA. 
          UH, THEIR PREFERENCE IS TO IMPLEMENT THE MINIMUM 70% PURCHASING MAP PURCHASING POWER MODEL THAT WAS PRESENTED BY CHIRON. 
          AND SO BASICALLY IT WOULD SET THE, UH, RETIREES, UH, PENSION IN 2024, AND WE WOULD WANT TO NOT ALLOW THAT TO ERODE MORE THAN 70% TO MAINTAIN A 70% PURCHASING POWER. 
          SO THEY WOULD BE PROVIDING A 1.5% COLA ANNUALLY, UH, ONCE THE FUND IS 70% FUNDED, BUT OVER TIME AND 1.5% WOULDN'T KEEP UP WITH INFLATION. 
          SO IT WOULD BEGIN TO ERODE. 
          AND AS IT ERODES, THEN IT WOULD BE NOT A 1.5% COLA, BUT IT WOULD BE A HIGHER AMOUNT NECESSARY TO KEEP UP WITH CPI WITH NO MAXIMUM OR CAP. 
          SO ONCE IT FALLS BEHIND, THE GOAL WOULD ALWAYS BE TO MAKE AN ADJUSTMENT TO KEEP IT AT 70% OF PURCHASING POWER. 
          THE NEXT SLIDE ON SLIDE 12, UH, BOTH UH, MS. GOTCH AND I HAVE TALKED ABOUT, UH, SUPPLEMENTAL PAY TO BRIDGE THE PERIOD OF TIME BETWEEN NOW AND 2046, ASSUMING THAT'S THE POINT WHEN WE ACHIEVE 70% FUNDING. 
          'CAUSE THAT'S STILL, YOU KNOW, 21 YEARS, 22 YEARS OUT. 
          SO WHAT DO WE DO IN THE MEANTIME? SO WE, WE'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS RELATED TO SUPPLEMENTAL PAY. 
          SO OUR PROPOSAL, OUR RECOMMENDATION IS A TWO PART, UH, RECOMMENDATION. 
          ONE WOULD BE TO PROVIDE 1% INCREASE TO THE RETIREE BASE PENSION IN 2025. 
          AND THAT WOULD BE FOR ALL RETIREES THAT ARE, UH, RETIRED AS OF DECEMBER 31ST, 2024. 
          AND THEN IN ADDITION TO THAT, IN 2026 THROUGH REACHING, UH, 70% FUNDING WOULD TO BE TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL 1% PER YEAR AS CONTINGENT UPON THE FUND HAVING A POSITIVE RATE OF RETURN, NOT A 6.5% RATE OF RETURN, NOT A 5%, BUT SIMPLY A POSITIVE RATE OF RETURN. 
          IN WHICH CASE WE WOULD PROVIDE ADDITIONAL 1% PER YEAR AS A 13TH CHECK. 
          IT DOES NOT GET ADDED INTO THE BASE OF THE PENSION, BUT IT WOULD BE A 13TH CHECK DURING THAT YEAR AS LONG AS THERE WAS A POSITIVE RETURN. 
          ON SLIDE 13 IS THE RECOMMENDATION FROM DALLAS POLICE AND FIRE PENSION STAFF. 
          UH, THEY DO SUPPORT SOME TYPE OF SUPPLEMENTAL PAY. 
          THEY HAVE PROPOSED A MODEL OF THE 13TH CHECK THAT'S BASED ON $5 TIMES THE NUMBER OF YEARS OF SERVICE, TIMES THE NUMBER OF YEARS A RETIREE HAS BEEN IN RETIREMENT SINCE 2017. 
          AGAIN, NOT PAYABLE, UM, I'M SORRY. 
          AND THEN, UH, ONE THING ABOUT THIS, IT DOES NOT ADD TO THE BASE, UH, BUT IT WOULD GROW OVER TIME BECAUSE EVERY YEAR A RETIREE IS IN RETIREMENT STATUS AN ADDITIONAL YEAR. 
          SO THE CALCULATION EACH YEAR, UH, WOULD CHANGE. 
          UH, THE COST OF THIS SUPPLEMENTAL PAY IS ABOUT THREE TIMES MORE THAN THE COST OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL PAY, UH, THAT CITY STAFF RECOMMENDS. 
          SO ON SLIDE 14, JUST A COMPARISON OF, UH, CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION COMPARED TO, 
          [00:30:01]
UH, DALLAS POLICE AND FIRE PENSION STAFF RECOMMENDATION BASED ON THEIR CONVERSATION WITH THEIR BOARD ON MAY THE NINTH. 
          UM, SO CITY STAFF RECOMMENDING AN A DC WITH A FIVE YEAR STEP UP, UH, THE PENSION STAFF ARE RECOMMENDING THREE YEAR STEP UP. 
          UH, YOU CAN SEE, AGAIN, MODIFYING THE COLA CITY STAFF WANTING TO CHANGE THAT TO CPI, NOT TO EXCEED 1.5, WOULD LIKE TO GO TO 3% IF WE CAN IDENTIFY ADDITIONAL FUNDING, UM, THE SUPPLEMENTAL PAY THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT ON THE PREVIOUS SLIDE. 
          SO THIS SLIDE HOPEFULLY JUST SUMMARIZES THE PREVIOUS SLIDES, UH, MORE CONCISELY. 
          SO ON SLIDE 15, UH, JUST A COMPARISON OF THE COST, UH, THE CITY WILL CONTRIBUTE OVER THE 30 YEAR PERIOD, ABOUT $11.2 BILLION TO THE PENSION FUND BASED ON CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND THE FACTORS THAT WE BUILT IN TO OUR RECOMMENDATION, THE DALLAS POLICE AND FIRE PENSION, UH, STAFF RECOMMEND CHANGES WILL REQUIRE THE CITY CON TO CONTRIBUTE $11.6 BILLION OVER THAT SAME 30 YEAR PERIOD. 
          OR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO IS $419 MILLION OVER THE 30 YEAR PERIOD. 
          THE NEXT SLIDE, UH, COMPARISON OF THE TWO SCENARIOS, UH, THE COMPARISON OF THE BUDGET IMPACT. 
          SO LAST WEEK ON MAY 15TH, WE, UH, DID A PRESENTATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON A FIVE-YEAR BUDGET OUTLOOK FOR GENERAL FUND. 
          AND SO WHAT I'VE DONE IS USING THAT AS MY BASE, MAKING SOME ADJUSTMENTS ON STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, BECAUSE LAST WEEK WE ONLY TALKED ABOUT THE FIVE YEAR STEP UP. 
          NOW I'VE ADDED FIVE YEAR STEP UP PLUS, UH, SUPPLEMENTAL PAY, UH, THOSE TYPES OF THINGS THAT INCREASE OUR COSTS JUST A LITTLE BIT. 
          SO LAST WEEK I TOLD YOU WE HAD A SHORTFALL FOR 25 OF 38 MILLION. 
          IT NOW SHOWS TO BE 38.4 FOR FISCAL YEAR 26. 
          LAST WEEK I TOLD YOU 37.3. 
          NOW IT'S, UH, 1.2 MILLION HIGHER, A SHORTFALL OF 38.5. 
          SO YOU CAN SEE THE SHORTFALL FROM THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION 38.4, 38.5 40, AND $38.9 MILLION. 
          COMPARING THAT TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE, AGAIN, SUBSTITUTING, UH, THE DALLAS POLICE AND FIRE PENSIONS RECOMMENDATION, UH, FOR MY RECOMMENDATION. 
          AND SO THOSE ARE LAID OUT HERE, AND YOU WILL SEE THEIR COST AND WHAT THAT DOES TO THE CITY'S SHORTFALL. 
          UH, 51.3 MILLION AND 25, 64 0.7 AND 26, 80 0.2 AND 27 AND 64 AND 28. 
          THAT CHANGE, THAT DROP OFF OF IN THAT FOURTH YEARS BECAUSE THEY'RE RAMPING UP OVER THREE YEARS, NOT OVER FIVE YEARS. 
          AND SO ACTUALLY, UH, THERE'S THE, THE SHORTFALL IS NOT AS BIG IN THAT FOURTH YEAR AS A RESULT OF THE WAY THEY'RE RAMPING THEIRS UP. 
          SO IN SLIDE 17, MOVING BEYOND THE NUMBERS, SOME ADDITIONAL OVERSIGHT RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE HAVE. 
          UH, WE DO OF COURSE KNOW THAT THE MAYOR 0.6 OF THE 11 BOARD MEMBERS, UH, BUT THOSE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE A FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY TO THE FUND, NOT TO THE CITY. 
          AND SO WE BELIEVE THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME ADDITIONAL OVERSIGHT FROM THE CITY TO ENSURE THAT WE ARE ABLE TO MANAGE THE, UH, PENSION CONTRIBUTION INCREASES THAT DO BECOME A LIABILITY OF THE CITY. 
          UH, WE HAVE PROPOSED CITY APPROVAL BEING REQUIRED FOR ITEMS THAT WOULD SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE OUR LIABILITY. 
          UH, CHANGING BENEFITS, UH, CHANGES TO SIGNIFICANT ACTUARIAL ASSUMPTIONS LIKE THE DISCOUNT RATE, SETTLING LAWSUITS OR OTHER THINGS THAT WOULD BE A, UH, SIGNIFICANT INCREASE TO, UH, OUR, THE CITY'S LIABILITY AND THE CITY'S COST. 
          UH, SECOND, UH, IN ANY YEAR THAT THE CITY CONTRIBUTION IS EXCEEDING A PLUS OR MINUS 5%, UH, CHANGE FROM THE YEAR BEFORE THAT, WE WOULD LAYER THAT IN, UH, AND AMORTIZE IT OVER THE 30 YEARS, UH, WHICH IS WITHIN THE A DC MODEL, RATHER THAN TAKING ALL OF THAT COST ON IN ONE YEAR. 
          AND THEN THIRD ANNUALLY, UH, HAVING A PROCESS WHERE, UH, GPFP DOES THEIR, UH, A DC CALCULATION, WE WOULD WORK WITH OUR ACTUARY TO DO, UH, AN A DC CALCULATION. 
          AS LONG AS THEY'RE CLOSE WITHIN 2%, WE WOULD, UH, GO WITH THE DPFP UH, CALCULATION. 
          BUT IF THERE IS A VARIANCE, WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHY. 
          WORK THROUGH NEGOTIATE, HAVE CONVERSATION ABOUT THAT. 
          AND IF IN THE END WE CAN'T RESOLVE WHATEVER THE DIFFERENCE IS, THEN AVERAGE THAT AND, AND MOVE ON. 
          UM, I, I'VE REALIZED OVER THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS THAT WORKING WITH ACTUARIES, AND I LOVE ACTUARIES, BUT WORKING WITH ACTUARIES THAT, UH, DEPENDING ON WHAT YOU PUT IN, WHAT YOUR ASSUMPTIONS ARE, UH, LITTLE CHANGES CAN MAKE BIG DIFFERENCES. 
          SO WE JUST, UH, WOULD FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE ABOUT THE RISK THAT WE'RE TAKING ON IS TO HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL OVERSIGHT THERE. 
          SO, MOVING TO SLIDE 18. 
          SO, UH, INCLUDED THESE NEXT SEVERAL SLIDES BECAUSE, UH, 
          [00:35:01]
OF THE CONVERSATION AROUND, DO WE WANT TO GO ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT I THINK WE CAN ABSORB INTO THE CURRENT BUDGET? UH, SO I BELIEVE THE RECOMMENDATION THAT WE'VE LAID OUT THUS FAR, WE CAN ABSORB THAT WORK WITH THAT. 
          WE WILL HAVE TO MAKE REDUCTIONS, BUT I BELIEVE WE CAN BUILD A BUDGET AROUND THAT, UH, TO GO ABOVE THAT, TO GO UP TO THE 3% COLA, UH, RATHER THAN THE 1.5 I, I THINK WE NEED TO CONSIDER ADDITIONAL FUNDING SOURCES. 
          SO ON THE NEXT COUPLE OF SLIDES, I'LL TALK ABOUT MONETIZING ASSETS, ISSUING PENSION OBLIGATION BONDS. 
          WE'LL TALK ABOUT SALES TAX AND INCREASING PROPERTY TAX RATE. 
          SO ON SLIDE 19, UM, STAFF HAVE IDENTIFIED 10 PROPERTIES, UH, TO CONSIDER FOR MONETIZATION. 
          UH, THOSE HAVE, UH, BEEN UPDATED REGULARLY TO GPFM. 
          DR. ROBERT PEREZ HAS PROVIDED A MEMO, UH, MONTHLY FOR THE LAST FEW MONTHS, AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO UPDATE GPFM ON PROGRESS OF, UH, DOING APPRAISALS, WORKING WITH CONSULTANTS ON, UH, HOW WE MAY BE ABLE TO MONETIZE THOSE VARIOUS ASSETS. 
          WE LAID OUT THIS SCHEDULE INITIALLY, HAVEN'T CHANGED THE SCHEDULE. 
          MAY THROUGH SEPTEMBER, ENGAGE WITH CONSULTANTS, UH, OCTOBER THROUGH DECEMBER, PRESENT THE FINDINGS TO GPFM AND THE CITY COUNCIL. 
          AND THEN, UH, EARLY IN 25, IMPLEMENT THE DIRECTION OF CITY COUNCIL. 
          ANY PROCEEDS FROM MONETIZING, UH, THOSE ASSETS COULD BE TRANSFERRED TO THE PENSION FUND. 
          THAT WOULD LOWER THE A DC CALCULATIONS. 
          IT WOULD LOWER THE CITY'S CONTRIBUTIONS IN FUTURE YEARS. 
          IT WOULD FREE UP FINANCIAL CAPACITY IF WE WANTED TO INCREASE THE COLAS OR OTHER BENEFITS. 
          SLIDE 20, ISSUING PENSION OBLIGATION BONDS. 
          UH, WE HAVE THE FINANCIAL CAPACITY, UH, NOW THROUGH 2029 TO BE ABLE TO ISSUE ABOUT $400 MILLION IN PENSION OBLIGATION BONDS. 
          THAT CAPACITY WILL INCREASE EACH YEAR AS WE PAY OFF EXISTING DEBT. 
          UH, WORKING WITH BOND COUNSEL, JUST ASK THEM TO REAFFIRM WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, UH, THAT WE ARE ABLE TO PAY THE DEBT ON, UH, PENSION OBLIGATION BONDS THROUGH OUR DEBT SERVICE FUND. 
          UH, ALSO WORKING WITH OUR FINANCIAL ADVISORS TO IDENTIFY WHAT WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE TRIGGER FOR WHEN WE COULD ISSUE POVS. 
          SO AN OPTION WOULD BE TO GO AHEAD AND GET AUTHORIZATION FROM VOTERS TO ISSUE THE PENSION OBLIGATION. 
          BONDS HAVE A TRIGGER IN PLACE, AND ONCE WE HIT THE TRIGGER, ONCE THE MARKET HITS THAT TRIGGER, THEN WE COULD, UH, ISSUE THE PABS. 
          UH, TRANSFERRING THE, THE PROCEEDS TO THE PENSION FUND, UH, WOULD REDUCE OUR FUTURE CONTRIBUTIONS, CREATE CAPACITY, UH, FOR ADDITIONAL BENEFITS. 
          SLIDE 21. 
          UH, SHIFTING A QUARTER OF A, A PENNY FROM, UH, OF SALES TAX FROM DART TO THE CITY. 
          UH, THIS HAS BEEN SOMETHING THAT'S TALKED ABOUT FOR YEARS. 
          I'VE HEARD THINGS ABOUT THIS. 
          UH, IT WOULD REQUIRE A PROCESS. 
          IT WOULD REQUIRE, UH, US WORKING WITH DART. 
          UH, I AM AWARE THAT SOME OTHER MEMBER CITIES HAVE EXPRESSED AN INTEREST IN REALLOCATING SOME OF THEIR, THEIR SALES TAX FROM DART BACK TO THE CITY. 
          SO IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT COULD BE WORKED TOGETHER WITH DART, UM, AND GO THROUGH A PROCESS, UH, A QUARTER OF A CENT, UH, WOULD GENERATE AN ADDITIONAL A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS FOR THE CITY. 
          'CAUSE OUR, OUR 1 CENT IS ABOUT $400 MILLION. 
          LAST YEAR IT WAS 425 MILLION. 
          AND THE FOURTH STRATEGY, UH, FOR POLICY DISCUSSION ON PAGE 22, UH, INCREASING PROPERTY TAX, UH, THROUGH A TAX RATIFICATION ELECTION. 
          SO, AS I'VE SAID A COUPLE OF TIMES, WE BELIEVE THAT WE CAN MANAGE THE, UH, FIVE YEAR STEP UP AND THE SUPPLEMENTAL PAY THAT'S IN OUR RECOMMENDATION WITHIN OUR EXISTING BUDGET. 
          IT WILL REQUIRE REDUCTIONS. 
          THERE'S NO JOKE ABOUT THAT. 
          WE WILL BE HAVING TO MAKE SOME CUTS THIS YEAR TO BE ABLE TO FUND THAT, BUT WE BELIEVE THAT IT, IT'S MANAGEABLE. 
          UH, SO WE COULD SUBMIT TO COUNSEL A BALANCED BUDGET, UH, THAT DOES JUST THAT ABSORBS, UH, THE COST OF THE FIVE YEAR STEP UP AND THE SUPPLEMENTAL PAY. 
          THAT'S PART OF OUR RECOMMENDATION. 
          BUT IF, UH, COUNCIL WANTED TO GO ABOVE AND BEYOND THAT IN SUCH SOME WAY, UH, THERE WOULD BE A NEED TO, UH, POTENTIALLY LOOK AT EXCEEDING THE 3.5% CAP ON OUR PROPERTY TAX REVENUE THAT WAS PUT IN PLACE IN 2019 BY, UH, THE STATE LEGISLATURE. 
          UH, TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT, IT WOULD REQUIRE AN ELECTION OF THE VOTERS TO HAVE AN ELECTION THIS NOVEMBER WOULD REQUIRE CALLING THE ELECTION ON AUGUST THE 14TH. 
          SO GETTING FEEDBACK WOULD BE IMPORTANT BECAUSE THAT'S, UH, YOU KNOW, RIGHT AWAY AFTER THE JULY RECESS. 
          SO, SUMMARY OF OUR RECOMMENDATIONS ON SLIDE 23, AGAIN, A DC UH, MODEL WITH A FIVE YEAR STEP UP, NO CHANGE TO THE EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION RATES. 
          CONTINUE OUR COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE BILL 31 58, WHICH REQUIRES 70% 
          [00:40:01]
FUNDING BEFORE THERE'S THE AD HOC SIMPLE COLA, BUT MODIFYING THAT COLA TO BE BASED ON CPI, NOT TO EXCEED 1.5%, AND AGAIN, CONTINGENT ON SOME OTHER FUNDING STREAM, INCREASING THAT COLA TO 3%, AGAIN, BASED ON CPI OFFERING SOME TYPE OF SUPPLEMENTAL PAY TO BRIDGE THE PERIOD BETWEEN 2025 AND WHEN THE FUND WILL REACH 70% FUNDING THRESHOLD, WE'RE PROPOSING A 1% INCREASE ADDED TO THE RETIREE BASE IN 25, AND THEN AN ADDITIONAL 1% AS A 13TH CHECK, UH, CONTINGENT ON A POSITIVE RATE OF RETURN. 
          WE BELIEVE OUR RECOMMENDATION, UH, MUST CONTIN CON CONTAIN SOME ELEMENTS TO STRENGTHEN OUR CITY OVERSIGHT. 
          UH, CON WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO LOOK AT WAYS TO, UH, IDENTIFY A LUMP SUM OR ONGOING REVENUE. 
          AND I WANT TO PERSONALLY CONTINUE TO WORK WITH, UH, THE STAFF OF THE DALLAS POLICE AND FIRE PENSION FUND. 
          I BELIEVE MR. ATKINS IS CONTINUING THOSE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE CHAIR OF THAT BOARD, UM, TO TRY TO REACH SOME, UH, CONSENSUS AS WE CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD. 
          SO, SLIDE 24. 
          NEXT STEPS TODAY. 
          UM, OBVIOUSLY AD HOC COMMITTEE, BUT IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO RECEIVE, UH, COMMITTEE FEEDBACK ON OUR RECOMMENDATIONS AND TO RECEIVE YOUR POLICY GUIDANCE, ESPECIALLY AROUND THOSE FOUR AREAS OF POTENTIAL OTHER REVENUES. 
          ON JUNE THE FIFTH, THERE IS A COUNCIL BRIEFING THAT'S SCHEDULED ON THE PENSION FUND ON JUNE THE SIXTH. 
          WE WOULD HAVE ANOTHER AD HOC COMMITTEE MEETING AT WHICH TIME, UH, WE WOULD HAVE ERF, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE COMMITTEE. 
          UH, THE, THE NEXT VOTING AGENDA AFTER JUNE THE FIFTH, UH, COUNCIL BRIEFING IS JUNE THE 12TH. 
          IF WE TOOK ANY ACTION ON THAT DAY, WE COULD DO ADDITIONAL BRIEFINGS ON JUNE THE 18TH. 
          AND THEN, UH, ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY FOR COUNCIL ACTION ON JUNE THE 26TH. 
          THERE'S GONNA BE ANYTHING RELATED TO ELECTIONS. 
          UH, WE CAN CONTINUE TO BRIEF ON AUGUST THE SEVENTH, BUT AUGUST THE 14TH WOULD BE THE DAY WE WOULD NEED TO CALL AN ELECTION FOR ANY PURPOSE, UH, IF WE'RE GONNA HAVE A NOVEMBER ELECTION. 
          UM, SO JUST IN CLOSING, UH, WE ARE FULLY COMMITTED TO, UH, THE FUNDING SOUNDNESS OF THE PLAN AND PROTECTING THE PENSION FOR THE, UH, RETIREES AND THE ACTIVE EMPLOYEES. 
          AND I THINK WHAT WE'VE LAID OUT AS A RECOMMENDATION ABSOLUTELY PROTECTS THE PENSION FUND AND ACHIEVES PRB REQUIREMENTS. 
          SO WITH THAT, UH, I WILL ANSWER QUESTIONS. 
          JENNY WILL ANSWER QUESTIONS RELATED TO COLA UH, MAYOR PRO. 
          TIM, BACK TO YOU, SIR. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, I'M GOING TO LAY SOME GROUND RULES WHEN WE GET STARTED. 
          I JUST WANT TO JUST, UH, COMMENT ON ONE DEAL ON PAGE 18. 
          THE ADDITION FUNDING POLICY, YOU KNOW, MONITORING ASSET ISSUE, PENSION OBLIGATION, BOND TO SALE TAX INCREASE PROPER TAX RATE TO THE VOTERS TO REFERENDUM, UH, WITH THESE, THESE, UH, ISSUES THAT IT'S IN THE FUTURE. 
          IS THAT A FIRST STATEMENT, JACK? IT IS NOT SOMETHING RIGHT NOW. 
          IT'S NOT MONEY IN THE BANK. 
          YOU ARE CORRECT, SIR, THAT, UM, IF WE DID SOMETHING TO, UH, WORK WITH, UH, DART, UH, THAT IS NOT MONEY IN THE BANK TODAY. 
          THERE'S A PROCESS WE WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH, UH, MONETIZING ASSETS. 
          THAT'S GONNA BE A PROCESS THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH SELLING PENSION OBLIGATION BONDS. 
          AGAIN, UH, THE MARKET CONDITION IS STILL NOT THERE. 
          AND I THINK THAT WE WOULD PUT TRIGGERS IN PLACE, UH, FOR WHEN WE WOULD DO THAT. 
          SO YOU'RE CORRECT THAT THE MONEY IS NOT IN THE BANK. 
          SO, UH, WITH THE PLAN, UH, IF YOU WANT TO ANSWER THAT, UH, TAMMY  CAN ANSWER, ANSWER THAT. 
          AND OUR PLAN, WE CANNOT SUBMIT SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T HAVE DOLLARS IN THE BANK NOW, UH, APPROPRIATE THAT TO THE PLAN. 
          SO WE CAN SUBMIT A PLAN, UH, TO THE PENSION REVIEW BOARD THAT OUTLINES HOW WE'RE GOING TO ACHIEVE, UH, FULL FUNDING IN 30 YEARS. 
          AND I THINK THAT WE ARE ABLE TO, UH, FOOTNOTE COMMUNICATE TO THE PENSION REVIEW BOARD THAT WE WOULD HAVE ADDITIONAL THINGS THAT WE WANT TO CHANGE IN THE PLAN IN THE FUTURE. 
          BUT WHAT WILL BE EXPECTED THE PLAN TO THE PRB NEEDS TO FULLY FUND IN 30 YEARS OKAY. 
          IN LABOR, TURN WHAT YOU SAID, I KNOW THAT'S KIND OF COMPLICATED. 
          I'M TRYING TO DRILL YOU DOWN TO A LATE RETURN TO A 6-YEAR-OLD, UH, THAT THE PLAN WITH THESE FOUR ASSETS THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, WE CAN SUBMIT A PLAN, BUT THE, THE PENSION REVIEW BOARD IS NOT GONNA ACCEPT THAT BECAUSE THAT'S FUTURE MONEY COMING IN IS NOT IN THE BANK TODAY. 
          YOU ARE CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          THEY, THEY WOULD EXPECT THAT EVERY RECOMMENDATION IS FULLY FUNDED WITH EXISTING MONEY. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT'S WHAT I'M EXISTING REVENUE STREAMS. THAT'S WHAT I KNOW. 
          SO COLLEAGUES, WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO IS WE'RE GONNA TRY TO STICK TO THE POINT. 
          WE GOT TWO BRIEFING, YOU CAN BREAK IT UP, WHATEVER, WHATEVER WAY YOU WANT TO DO IT. 
          SO WE HAVE AT LEAST TWO OR THREE QUESTIONS ON START TO THE LEFT AND, AND TRY TO STICK TO THE QUESTION. 
          AND JACK, 
          [00:45:01]
HOPEFULLY YOU CAN STICK TO THE ANSWER DIRECTLY. 
          YOU KNOW, WE WON'T DIRECT CONVERSATION, DIRECT QUESTION. 
          OKAY. 
          WITH THAT, I'M GO WITH TRIMER STEWART. 
          SEAN, SEAN, WOMAN STEWART, THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, I'M MAKING LOTS OF NOTES AND HOPEFULLY MY QUESTIONS WILL MAKE SENSE HERE. 
          SO JACK, YOU'VE JUST SAID THAT WE CAN ABSORB THE FIVE YEAR STEP UP, THE 1% INCREASE IN 2025, AND THEN THE ADDITIONAL CHECKS WITH WITHIN OUR REGULAR BUDGET WITHOUT ADDITIONAL FUNDING SOURCES. 
          SO I, IT IS OUR EXPECTATION THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO BALANCE THE BUDGET AND BRING IT TO YOU, INCLUDING THOSE THINGS, RIGHT? THOSE THREE THINGS. 
          AND SO I'M GOING TO TRY TO TURN US TO THE PAGE, UH, 16. 
          'CAUSE THIS IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT ON SLIDE 16 WITH THE RECOMMENDATION THAT, AND YOU JUST REPEATED PART OF THAT, UH, WE STILL HAVE A $38.4 MILLION SHORTFALL FOR FISCAL YEAR 25. 
          AND ON AUGUST THE 13TH, MS. TOLBERT AND I WILL DELIVER TO YOU A BALANCED BUDGET AND WE, WE WILL HAVE TO MAKE REDUCTIONS. 
          WE WILL HAVE TO, UH, IDENTIFY EFFICIENCIES. 
          WE MAY HAVE TO ELIMINATE SERVICES, BUT WE BELIEVE THAT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS MANAGEABLE AND WE ARE COMMITTED TO DOING AND WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING TO DO THAT AT THIS TIME. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THE SHORTFALL HAS GONE FROM 38 MILLION TO 38.4, CORRECT? YES, MA'AM. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, AND HOW LONG ARE WE IN THIS PHASE OF, UM, JUST THE ADDITIONAL CHECKS AND NO OTHER COLA? IS THAT THE 20 YEARS UNTIL 2046? YES. 
          YES MA'AM. 
          SO MY RECOMMENDATION, UM, STILL REQUIRES, UH, THE FUND TO BE 70% FUNDED BEFORE A COLA GOES INTO EFFECT. 
          SO WE'RE TRYING TO BRIDGE THAT PERIOD, BASICALLY BRIDGE IT FOR 20 YEARS WITH SUPPLEMENTAL PAY. 
          SO LET'S SAY WE IDENTIFY AN ADDITIONAL FUNDING SOURCE IN THE NEXT ONE, TWO TO THREE YEARS, WHERE DOES THAT FUNDING GO? DOES IT SIT IN A FUND TO FUND COLAS OR DOES IT GO INTO THE, TO THE PENSION FUND? DOES THAT MAKE, DO WE MAKE IT LIKE A, LIKE A BIG DOWN PAYMENT? SO IT DEPENDS ON WHAT IT IS. 
          SO, UM, TO, TO SPEAK ABOUT PENSION OBLIGATION BONDS OR MONETIZING AN ASSET AS AN EXAMPLE. 
          OKAY, SO WE, WE RAN SOME SCENARIOS RELATED TO IF WE WERE ABLE TO TRANSFER, UH, $500 MILLION TO THE FUND OKAY, IN 2029 OR 2031 OF THOSE TWO YEARS, THEN WHAT DOES THAT DO? THAT REDUCES OUR FUTURE COSTS BEGINNING IN 2031 THROUGH 2055. 
          THAT REDUCES OUR CONTRIBUTIONS, THAT FREES UP CAPACITY, IF YOU WILL. 
          AND WITH THAT CAPACITY, YOU COULD INCREASE THE, UH, COLA FROM 1.5 TO THREE. 
          UM, SOME THINGS WE MAY DO MAY RESULT IN ACHIEVING THAT, THAT DOES NOT ACHIEVE 70% FUNDING SOONER, BUT THERE MIGHT BE THINGS WE COULD DO THAT WOULD ACHIEVE 70% FUNDING SOONER, IN WHICH CASE IT WOULD BE EARLIER THAN 2046. 
          SO IF WE IDENTIFIED AN ADDITIONAL REVENUE STREAM, IF WE GOT A QUARTER OF A PENNY BACK FROM, UH, THE DARK SALES TAX, THE SALES TAX, MM-HMM. 
           IT'S ABOUT A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS. 
          SO THAT COMES TO THE CITY'S GENERAL FUND THAT GIVES THE BODY THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A DECISION ON WHAT YOU WANT TO DO. 
          DO YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND, UM, STARTING A COLA SOONER, NOT REQUIRING 70% FUNDING. 
          DO YOU WANNA STICK WITH REQUIRING 70% FUNDING? I CAN'T MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION BECAUSE I CAN'T EXPECT YOU TO THE DART TO HAPPEN. 
          RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT. 
          SO, BECAUSE I'M MAKING A RECOMMENDATION BASED ON WHAT I KNOW. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WE WOULD HAVE DECISIONS TO MAKE ABOUT HOW THAT MONEY WAS TO BE SPENT, BUT POTENTIALLY IT COULD INCREASE THE COLA. 
          YES. 
          THAT'S THE GOAL. 
          YES. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          MAY I ASK ONE MORE QUESTION? OKAY. 
          ONE MORE QUESTION. 
          OKAY. 
          WHAT COULD YOU ALL IDENTIFY FOR ME? 'CAUSE I, AND I SHOULD KNOW THIS FROM YOUR PRESENTATION, UM, WHAT CITIES IN TEXAS ARE CURRENTLY PAYING A TO THEIR FIRE AND, UM, POLICE RETIREES DO YOU WANNA ANSWER? THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN LOOK UP AND GET BACK TO YOU ON. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          SO, SO IF, IF YOU WOULD LIKE, WE CAN GET PULLED TOGETHER A COMPLETE LIST OF THEM ALL. 
          I MEAN, WE, WE KIND OF HIGHLIGHTED WHAT'S GOING ON WITH HOUSTON, SAN ANTONIO, AUSTIN, BUT WE, WE CAN GET MORE OF A COMPLEX, THOSE, WE HAD LOT OF CATEGORIES OF INFORMATION AND I COULDN'T QUITE TELL WHICH MEANT FAIR ENOUGH. 
          WHICH ONE MEANT THAT THEY WERE ACTUALLY PAYING A CO RIGHT. 
          AND PERHAPS THE CITIES AROUND THE SMALLER CITIES AROUND DALLAS WOULD BE HELPFUL AS WELL. 
          SO WE KIND OF KNOW WHAT OUR COMPETITION IS. 
          SO, WE'LL, WE'LL GET YOU A LIST OF CITIES AND, UH, WHAT TYPE OF COLA THEY GIVE AND 
          [00:50:01]
WHAT PERCENT FUNDED THEY ARE. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT WOULD BE GREAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. 
          JACK, DID YOU GET A MEMO THAT WE DID LIST? WHAT CITY? WOULD KAREN GET? A COLA? DO YOU RECEIVE THAT MEMO? YOU DIDN'T HAVE IT? I, I'M NOT SURE WHAT, I APOLOGIZE. 
          OKAY. 
          WE'LL MAKE SURE YOU GET IT TO. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, WITH THAT, UH, CHAIRMAN MORENO, THANK YOU CHAIR JACK, THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION. 
          UM, FIRST I APPRECIATE THE ADDITIONAL OVERSIGHT RECOMMENDATIONS SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE THROUGH A HEALTHY, UH, BALANCE. 
          UH, ON PAGE SEVEN WHEN WE ARE COMPARING, UH, THE THREE YEAR STEP UP TO THE FIVE YEAR STEP UP WILL, AGAIN, I GUESS THIS IS FOR OUR CITY MANAGER, WILL YOU BE PREPARING BOTH A THREE YEAR AND A FIVE YEAR, UH, BALANCE BUDGET ON, UH, BOTH RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE DP, UH, D UH, DPFP STAFF AND THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION? IF I UNDERSTAND YOUR, THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH. 
          UH, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER MORE, IF I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION CORRECTLY, WE WOULD DO OUR ACTUAL BIENNIAL BUDGET AND WHATEVER THE RECOMMENDATION OR THE DIRECTION THAT THE CITY COUNCIL WANTS TO GO, THAT'S HOW WE WOULD LOAD UP THAT BUDGET. 
          SO NOT NECESSARILY A BUDGET BASED ON A THREE YEAR OR FIVE YEAR, WE WOULD BASE IT ON THE FINAL RECOMMENDATION AND WHAT IS BEING SUPPORTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. 
          AND THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD USE TO BEGIN OUR PLANNING FOR THE BUDGET THAT WE PRESENT TO YOU IN AUGUST. 
          DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? IT DOES, BUT I'M JUST GONNA GO BACK TO THE NEXT STEPS ON THE CALENDAR. 
          AND SO I GUESS YOU WOULD HAVE THIS, UM, A FINAL DETERMINATION IN AUGUST, UH, TO PREPARE. 
          WELL, WHEN DO, WHEN WERE YOU, WHEN ARE WE GONNA GET THE BUDGET? SO YOU I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD. 
          OKAY. 
           APOLOGIZE MS. TOLER. 
          UM, WE WILL MAKE A BUDGET RECOMMENDATION, UM, ON, UH, AUGUST THE 13TH. 
          AND SO THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT TRYING TO GET SOME CONSENSUS AROUND, UH, OKAY, PERFECT. 
          WHAT, WHAT WE WANNA DO HERE IN JUNE. 
          OKAY, GREAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YOU GO AWAY IN JULY AND WE'LL DO THE WORK THAT, THAT'S HELPFUL. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, ON PAGE 18, I WANT TO THANK BOTH STAFF AND, UH, MY COLLEAGUES FOR, UH, COMING UP WITH VARIOUS RECOMMENDATIONS ON, UH, ADDITIONAL FUNDING SOURCES AND STRATEGIES WHEN IT COMES TO DART, UM, THE 100 MILLION ANNUALLY, THAT NUMBER, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO GARNER THE FIRST YEAR OR, UH, I KNOW THAT THERE'S DISCUSSIONS ABOUT DEPTH OBLIGATIONS, AND SO DO WE HAVE ANY IDEA ON WHEN THAT ADDITIONAL FUNDING WOULD BE, UH, AVAILABLE? I, I DO NOT. 
          I, I'M, WE WOULD HAVE TO WORK THROUGH THAT PROCESS AND GET AN UNDERSTANDING. 
          UH, AND IF, IF ALL THE MEMBER CITIES WANTED A REDUCTION, HOW WOULD WE WORK WITH DART ON THAT? THERE'S A LOT OF UNKNOWNS AT THIS POINT RELATED TO THAT. 
          AND DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE MAKEUP OF THE DART BOARD IS? UM, AS FAR AS, UH, THEIR, THEIR, UM, COMMITTEE, THEIR, UH, THEIR MEMBERSHIP, UM, I BELIEVE MAJORITY IS APPOINTED BY THE CITY OF DALLAS, AND MR. BLACKMAN WAS SHAKING HER HEAD, SO I'M GONNA LET YOU ANSWER . 
          OKAY. 
          UM, THANK YOU COUNCILMAN WILLIS. 
          SURE, THANK YOU. 
          AND IT'S GOOD TO SEE SO MANY, UM, I'M ASSUMING MEMBERS, UH, OF THE FUND AND THE AUDIENCE TODAY. 
          SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. 
          UM, AND WE'LL PROBABLY ASK SOME POINTED UNCOMFORTABLE QUESTIONS, BUT OUR TAXPAYERS DON'T HAVE REPRESENTATION ON THE FUND BOARD, SO IT'S UP TO US HERE TO, TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT. 
          AND, UM, WE WERE PRESENTED LAST WEEK WITH THE, UM, THE $38 MILLION DEFICIT. 
          I KNOW WE WANNA CLOSE THAT GAP, BUT THE EXPECTATION IS TO CLOSE THAT GAP. 
          BUT, UH, WE'VE GOT A HUMAN FACTOR HERE OF OUR TAXPAYERS WHO WANNA SEE, UM, GRASS MODE AND PARKS AND 3 1 1 CALLS ANSWERED AND STAFF RESPONDING TO THOSE CALLS AND, UH, DECOMMISSIONING HOMELESS ENCAMPMENTS AND FIXING STREETS AND ALLEYS. 
          SO, UM, YOU KNOW, THE TAXPAYERS ARE ON THE HOOK, BUT IT'S NOT THEIR FAULT. 
          AND SO, UM, YOU KNOW, WE, WE HAVE TO ASK SOME TOUGH QUESTIONS TO GET THROUGH THIS, BUT, UH, MS. CHEN, I WANNA GO TO YOUR PRESENTATION ON COLA AND, UH, I, IT LOOKS LIKE WHEN YOU SHOWED THE NATIONAL CHART THERE, IT LOOKS LIKE THE TREND IS THAT, UM, THERE ARE CHANGES BEING MADE TO COLA ACROSS THE COUNTRY, EVEN IF ONE EXISTS, IT'S BEING REDUCED. 
          YEP. 
          IN GENERAL, THE TREND HAS BEEN TO REDUCE CO PROVISIONS. 
          OKAY. 
          BUT, AND I DON'T KNOW THAT DELOITTE WOULD MEASURE THIS, BUT IS THERE ANY KIND OF GAUGE ON THE CORRESPONDING EFFECT OF THAT? I MEAN, WHAT'S THE IMPACT THAT IT'S MAKING ON THE ACTIVE MEMBERS? UM, THIS IS JUST BASED ON THE, THE ARTICLE THAT WAS ISSUED BY THE STATE RETIREMENT ADMINISTRATORS. 
          UM, AND 
          [00:55:01]
IT'S, IT'S A GENERAL TREND THAT'S NATIONWIDE IS CERTAINLY NOT AN ISSUE, UM, SOLELY FOR DALLAS. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, NATIONWIDE PENSION FUNDS ARE IN GENERAL REDUCING BENEFITS AND TRYING TO BOLSTER THE FUNDED STATUS OF PLANS. 
          SO I DON'T, DO YOU KNOW IF SOMETHING, MR. IRELAND? I, I DO NOT. 
          AND I, I MEAN, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN TRY TO LOOK AT AND SEE IF WE CAN FIND ANY DATA ON, BUT I'M NOT AWARE YOU, YOU'RE LOOKING FOR A CORRELATION TO, I I THINK IF, IF WE'RE REDUCING THAT BENEFIT, WHAT I, WHAT IS THE RESULT OF THAT? AND MAYBE OUR ASSOCIATIONS MIGHT BE ABLE TO POINT TO SOMETHING THAT'S MORE QUANTITATIVE, SO WE CAN GAUGE THAT. 
          BUT, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, WE TALK IN ANECDOTAL TERMS AND, UM, YOU KNOW, I I THINK THAT IT, IT HAS SOME KIND OF EFFECT. 
          UH, ON THE OTHER HAND, WE ALWAYS TALK ABOUT THE CITY'S CONTRIBUTION AND, UH, YOU KNOW, IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE FUND CAN PERFORM AND ALSO HELP US CLOSE THIS GAP. 
          UM, ONE QUESTION I HAVE IS ON PAGE 12 WHERE WE TALK ABOUT THE CONCEPT OF A 13TH CHECK BASED ON SOME KIND OF AVERAGE, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THE, THE MIDDLE GROUND. 
          WHAT, WHAT WOULD THAT CHECK LOOK LIKE? JACK, HAVE YOU GOT A NUMBER FOR THAT? SO ARE YOU ON SLIDE 12? RIGHT? I'M JUST TRYING TO GET A SENSE, IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A 13TH CHECK TO KIND OF BRIDGE THINGS FOR 20 YEARS, WHAT DOES, WHAT DOES THIS LOOK LIKE? I MEAN, TO, FROM A MEMBER PERSPECTIVE, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS THAT GONNA FEEL LIKE, LIKE WHEN THEY GET THAT 13TH CHECK? SO, UM, EACH RETIREE'S, UH, ACTUAL PENSION BENEFIT IS DIFFERENT. 
          SO IT'S INDIVIDUALIZED AND I UNDERSTAND THAT. 
          UM, AND SO I'M JUST GONNA THROW OUT A NUMBER. 
          A RANGE IS FINE IF IT'S, IF IT'S A $60,000 A YEAR BENEFIT, A 1% IS $600, AN ADDITIONAL $600 CHECK. 
          MM-HMM. 
          , UH, YOU GET YOUR 12 REGULAR CHECKS, YOU WOULD GET A 13TH CHECK IN THIS CASE OF $600. 
          AND I KIND OF THINK THAT IN THE $60,000 RANGE WAS THE AVERAGE. 
          I'M GONNA LOOK AND SEE IF KELLY'S ACTUALLY 5 79, NO, IT'S FIVE 60,000. 
          OH, 59 AVERAGE. 
          OKAY, SO IT MIGHT BE 500. 
          YEAH, IT, IT'S, I APOLOGIZE, KELLY, PUTTING YOU ON THE SPOT. 
          I'M JUST TRYING TO BEGIN TO PUT A LITTLE BIT OF A YEAH. 
          PARAMETER AROUND THAT OR, OR GET A SENSE OF WHAT THAT WOULD BE. 
          SO THE 60 THAT I SAID WAS, WAS A HIGH FOR THE AVERAGE. 
          OKAY. 
          AND SO YOU ALSO NOTE ON THIS SLIDE ABOUT THE FUND HAVING A POSITIVE RETURN. 
          HOW DO WE FURTHER DEFINE HOW POSITIVE? I MEAN, IS IT 1E-06% OR DO WE WANNA GET INTO, WE NEED TO SEE A 3% RETURN IN, IN THIS CASE, I AM SAYING POSITIVE AND SO I AM NOT SUGGESTING THAT IT, IT'S REQUIRED TO BE, UM, ABOVE 0.01 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. 
          AND SO IT'S, UNLESS THE POLICY IS FOR IT TO BE SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN THAT, UH, THE SUGGESTION HERE IS THAT IT JUST NOT BE NEGATIVE. 
          YEAH. 
          I MEAN, SO BECAUSE IT'S SUGGESTING, YOU KNOW, MONEY IS GOING OUT AND WE HAVE TO BE SURE THAT WE'RE MINDFUL ON THE FRONT END TOO. 
          'CAUSE IT CAN'T JUST BE ABOUT THE CITY'S CONTRIBUTION. 
          IT'S GOT TO BE ABOUT HOW THE FUND IS PERFORMING AS WELL. 
          UM, ON ON PAGE 15, WHERE WE GET INTO THE COST IS ALL OF THE CITY'S, ARE ALL OF THE CITY'S NUMBERS FACTORING WHERE THE FUND IS WITH A 6.5% RETURN? OR DOES THAT NOT REALLY TOUCH THIS? THIS IS FOCUSED JUST ON WHAT WE COLLECT AND WHAT OUR EXPENSES ARE. 
          SO SLIDE 15, UH, IS SHOWING THE CITY'S CONTRIBUTION EACH YEAR. 
          AND SO THESE ARE THE CONTRIBUTIONS THAT WOULD BE NEEDED EACH YEAR TO ACHIEVE FULL FUNDING IN 30 YEARS BASED UPON THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE A DC OF THE A DC WITH, UH, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, THE CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND DPFP STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS DIFFERENT ADCS WITH DIFFERENT SUPPLEMENTAL PAYS. 
          AND SO BOTH OF THOSE EXPENSES ARE FACTORED INTO THESE NUMBERS AND THESE ARE THE NUMBERS THAT WOULD BE NEEDED TO ACHIEVE FULL FUNDING IN 30 YEARS. 
          UM, AND THESE ARE THE NUMBERS THAT ARE NEEDED BASED UPON THE ACTUARIAL ANALYSIS THAT IT DOES INCLUDE THE RATE OF RETURN AND ALL OF THOSE OTHER THINGS THAT YOU MENTIONED. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THAT IS, I APOLOGIZE, THAT'S A COMPLICATED ANSWER, BUT IT DOES TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ALL OF THE ACTUARIAL ANALYSIS ON THE REVENUES FROM RATE, FROM RETURN, ALL OF THE EXPENSES, WHAT THE EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTIONS ARE, AND HEAR WHAT THE CITY'S CONTRIBUTIONS WOULD BE. 
          THIS IS SIMPLY THE CITY'S CONTRIBUTIONS INTO THE FUND TO ACHIEVE FULL FUNDING IN 30 YEARS. 
          SO IF IT COMES IN LOWER THAN THAT, THIS NUMBER COULD BE HIGHER Y YES. 
          YES. 
          SO, UH, THE A DC MODEL, UM, I MEAN IT'S, IT'S FULL OF ASSUMPTIONS. 
          AND SO IF, UH, IN, IF WE'RE NOT ACHIEVING, UM, SIX POINT A HALF PERCENT RETURNS, THEN THE A DC IN ANY YEAR COULD, COULD BE BUMPED UP SOME, AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE SUGGESTING SOME ADDITIONAL GUARDRAILS. 
          SO THAT IF IT'S SIGNIFICANT THAT WE'RE ABLE TO SMOOTH THAT, I'LL, I'LL COME BACK TO YOU, UH, COUNCILWOMAN BLACKMAN. 
          [01:00:01]
UM, THANK YOU. 
          SO, UM, ONTO THE ADDITIONAL FUNDING STRATEGIES FOR POLICY DISCUSSION, YOU'VE LISTED FOUR. 
          UM, ARE YOU LOOKING FOR US TO SAY PICK THIS ONE OVER THIS ONE, OR COULD WE JUST SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT, ANALYZE ALL FOUR OF THEM AND I MAY EVEN ADD TWO MORE ? I'LL, I'LL START WITH THE, OKAY. 
          I'LL START WITH THAT. 
          THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH FOR THE QUESTION. 
          WE DEFINITELY WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHERE THE COMMITTEE, UM, IS ON ANY OF THOSE POTENTIAL, UM, RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          WE THINK IT'S A POLICY DISCUSSION. 
          OKAY. 
          AND IF THERE ARE ADDITIONAL ITEMS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO THE LIST, WE'D LOVE TO BE ABLE TO HEAR ABOUT THOSE AS WELL. 
          SO AS WE GO INTO THE BUDGET PROCESS, WE'LL HAVE CLEAR DIRECTION FROM THE CITY COUNCIL BECAUSE I, I THINK MY WHOLE, UH, STRATEGY ON THIS IS YOU'VE GOTTA HAVE INJECTION OF MONEY AT A CONSISTENT FLOW. 
          IT CAN'T BE, OH, WE SOLD SOMETHING AND NOW HERE'S 30 MILLION. 
          YOU, YOU'VE, IT'S A FUEL INJECTION CAR, RIGHT? YOU'VE GOTTA KEEP PUMPING INTO IT. 
          AND I'M, YOU KNOW, GAMBLING WILL BE ON THE TABLE EVERY SESSION AND WE'RE GONNA NEED TO BE READY FOR THAT. 
          WHERE DO WE FIND THAT? AND I BELIEVE ONE OF OUR PARTNERS, UH, THAT'S HERE HAS TALKED ABOUT THAT THAT IS A FUNDING STREAM. 
          I KNOW IT'S NOT SOMETHING PEOPLE WANNA TALK ABOUT, BUT IT IS A FUNDING STREAM AND WE ARE ABOUT TO OPEN A CONVENTION CENTER. 
          YOU KNOW, ARE THERE FEES THAT, BECAUSE THEY DO TAP INTO OUR PUBLIC SAFETY COMPONENTS, ARE THERE FEES THAT WE CAN RECOUP SOME OF THAT JUST FOR, YOU KNOW, GIGGLES AND GRINS, RIGHT? TO TALK ABOUT WE'VE GOT TO HAVE A FUNDING STREAM, UM, AND EVERYTHING NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT. 
          I MEAN, EVEN BAKE SALES, UM, 'CAUSE THE MONETIZING OF ASSETS IS NOT AS EASY AS WE THOUGHT IT WAS. 
          I DO KNOW THAT THE SALES TAX REDUCTION, YOU CAN DO THAT. 
          YOU DON'T, YOU, YOU DON'T REALLY HAVE TO GO TO THE LEGISLATURE. 
          UH, THEY CAN, I THINK THEY CHANGED IN 95. 
          I'M STILL INVESTIGATING THAT. 
          BUT THEY CAN DO IT HERE. 
          UM, AND I THINK IT'S TIME THAT WE ASK OUR PARTNERS WHAT THEY'RE SPENDING THEIR MONEY ON, AND TO TELL ME THAT THEY'RE GOING AFTER THEIR MARKET SHARE IS WHERE THEY'RE REDUCING WHEN WE'RE ASKING. 
          THIS IS JUST NOT FAIR. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT'S, I'M PUTTING THAT OUT THERE. 
          DO NOT COME AFTER THE PEOPLE THAT USE IT TO BEAR THE BURDEN ON THIS BECAUSE THEY NEED TO. 
          PEOPLE NEED TO SPEND THEIR MONEY WISELY. 
          AND IF THEY'RE NOT, THEN THEY NEED TO SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT? WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO REALLOCATE. 
          THAT'S JUST MY UNDERSTANDING. 
          THAT'S MY PERSONAL OPINION. 
          AND THEY NEED TO GROW THE PIE. 
          IF YOU REALLY WANNA SERVE THE SERVE SOUTHERN DALLAS, SO SERVE SOUTHERN DALLAS, GET ALL THOSE SOUTHERN CITIES. 
          PART OF IT, AND I KNOW I'M TALKING TO YOU, BUT YOU'RE NEED TO DO WITH IT , BUT GET THEM PART OF IT AND YOU WILL BUILD YOUR PIE. 
          YOUR PIE WILL GET BIGGER. 
          WHICH MEANS THE SENIOR, THE SENIOR MEMBER CITIES SHOULD SEE A REDUCTION IN THOSE, UH, CONTR ON IN THOSE CONTRIBUTIONS. 
          JUST MY THOUGHTS, UM, ON THE GOVERNANCE, UM, I NOTICED THAT, UM, YOU PUT IN, YOU KNOW, YES, THE MAYOR MAKES THE, UM, THE APPOINTMENTS, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT BE CONFIRMED BY THE COUNCIL. 
          WE ARE ALL PART OF THIS EQUATION. 
          WE HAVE TO SIT UP HERE AND BALANCE A BUDGET AND WE WANNA KNOW THEM AND WE WANNA BE ABLE TO SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT, YOU HAVE PUT THE RIGHT PERSON HERE ON THE BUS AND WE NEED, AND WE NEED TO SEE THEM. 
          AND THEY NEED TO HEAR WHAT WE ARE HAVING TO BALANCE AS WELL. 
          I'M NOT ASKING THEM TO BE OUR, YOU KNOW, RUBBER STAMP, BUT WE NEED TO KNOW WHO THEY ARE. 
          UM, WHEN YOU GET INTO THE, YOU KNOW, DISCOUNT RATE WHEN THEY HAVE TO COME BACK TO US, THIS, ET CETERA, YOU BETTER FLUSH IT OUT BECAUSE THE ETS WILL GET YOU IN TROUBLE IF YOU DON'T HAVE IT LISTED. 
          OKAY, BACK NOW WE'RE GONNA GET ONTO THE COLA STUFF. 
          IS THERE A WAY, 'CAUSE YOU WANNA DO THE SUPPLEMENTAL CHECK, IS THERE A WAY IN WHICH A SMALL COLA CAN BE ACHIEVED WHEN YOU HIT MILESTONES SUCH AS A CONTR, LIKE YOU'VE SAID, A CONTRIBUTION, BUT LIKE IF IT'S 45% FUNDED, 50% FUNDED, I MEAN, HAVE YOU LOOKED AT IT IN PHASES? BECAUSE IT IS A HIT, AND I'M JUST WONDERING, I'M TRYING TO BE CREATIVE ON UNTIL WE CAN GET SOME FUNDING SOURCES TO GIVE A CONSISTENT ONE THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE, UH, PROGRAM. 
          ONE OF CHIRON'S ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATIONS OR OPTIONS, I GUESS RELATED TO A COLA WAS AN IMMEDIATE PARTIAL COLA, WHICH WAS, INSTEAD OF WAITING UNTIL THE FUND IS AT 70%, OFFERING THE COLAS, UH, BASED ON THE PERCENT AND THEN USING THAT PERCENT TO MULTIPLY TIMES 1.5. 
          SO WHEN YOU'RE 50% FUNDED, YOU GET 50% OF 1.5. 
          WHEN YOU'RE 60%, IT'S 60% OF 1.5. 
          DID THAT NOT GET A LOT OF TRACTION OR DID IT GET KIND OF GET LOST BECAUSE YOU'RE RIGHT NOW I REMEMBER YOU TALKING ABOUT IT OR IT WAS BEING DISCUSSED. 
          THE THE COST WAS ON UP THERE. 
          IT WAS, IT SEEMED UNMANAGEABLE WITHIN THE, THE FUNDS THAT WE HAD, UH, WITHIN OUR EXISTING BUDGET. 
          I, I'LL HAVE TO PULL OKAY. 
          HAVE TONS OF NUMBERS HERE. 
          I'LL, TO GET YOU THE SCHEDULE. 
          I GUESS THE QUESTION IS 
          [01:05:01]
DO WE FUND IT? DO WE CREATE A SOUND FUND OR DO WE PAY A COLA? AND I GUESS MY QUESTION IS TO YOU IS HOW DO WE SPLIT THE BABY? HOW DO WE DO BOTH AND CAN WE DO BOTH? WE'RE LEGALLY REQUIRED TO HAVE A, UH, A PLAN THAT ACHIEVES FULL FUNDING IN 30 YEARS, FIRST AND FOREMOST. 
          OKAY. 
          AND IN LISTENING TO THE BOARD OF THE PENSION FUND SPEAK, UH, THEY'VE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT'S THE FIRST AND FOREMOST UH, REQUIREMENT. 
          UM, SECONDARY TO THAT, OF COURSE IS HOW DO WE ADDRESS THE CALL SOONER THAN 2046? SO GETTING US TO 80% IS A, UH, OR 70% IS A, THAT IS THE, THE MAIN TARGET. 
          ALL THIS OTHER STUFF IS KIND OF LIKE ICING ON THE CAKE. 
          THAT'S WHEN THE COLA WOULD GO INTO EFFECT. 
          OKAY. 
          IS IT 70% FUNDED AND THERE'S NOT? AND THEN, SO IT'S JUST AN ADDED COST TO WHAT OUR ALREADY CONTRIBUTION IS. 
          SO TRYING TO PROVIDE SOME TYPE OF SUPPLEMENT BECAUSE 70% FUNDED IS SO FAR OUT THERE. 
          IS THERE SOMETHING WE CAN DO IN THE MEANTIME? YEAH. 
          SOMETHING TO, TO HELP. 
          DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT WE WERE AT FUNDED WHEN WE STARTED THIS EXERCISE IN 2017? IT'S BLACK ONE, THE LAST ONE THAT THANK YOU. 
          IN 2017, UH, THE FUND WAS AT 47.7. 
          BUT IF YOU GO FURTHER BACK, THE FUND WAS UP TO NEARLY 90% FUNDED IN, WERE THOSE REAL NUMBERS? 2008? YES. 
          THEY WERE THE REAL NUMBERS. 
          MM-HMM. 
           IN, IN 2008. 
          IT WAS, THE FUNDING WAS REALLY GOOD, BUT IT STARTED DROPPING. 
          AND THEN SINCE 2017 WE'VE CONTINUED TO DROP. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          TRY TRY ONE MORE MEDICINE. 
          SO IT CONTINUED TO DROP WHEN YOU STARTED ABIDING BY THE LEGISLATION THAT WAS PASSED THAT RESTRICTED HOW MUCH WE WERE GONNA CONTRIBUTE IT, IT CONTINUED TO DROP AFTER HOUSE BILL 31 58, EVEN THOUGH THERE WERE, UH, FUNDING GUIDELINES AND REQUIREMENTS. 
          YES MA'AM. 
          SO BY FOLLOWING THE FUNDING GUIDELINES, WE ACTUALLY CAUSED THE REDUCTION IN THE PLAN BEING FUNDED. 
          NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT. 
          WE DIDN'T CAUSE THE FUND TO BE UNDERFUNDED. 
          OKAY. 
          SO YOU ASKED FOR INPUT, UM, ON THOSE FOUR STRATEGIES. 
          AND SO I'M JUST GONNA START OFF BY SAYING MY FEEDBACK IS A VOTER REFERENDUM TO RAISE TAXES, TO PAY FOR ANYTHING, WHETHER IT'S A COLA OR ANYTHING ELSE IN THE CITY IS I WOULD BE COMPLETELY OPPOSED TO THAT AND FIND IT TO BE EXTREMELY FINANCIALLY IRRESPONSIBLE. 
          THE SECOND THING IS, YOU KNOW, Y'ALL KEEP TALKING ABOUT A $38 MILLION SHORTFALL, BUT LET'S BE REAL, OUR BUDGET, ACCORDING TO YOU JUST GENERAL FUND IS GONNA INCREASE $60 MILLION. 
          THE ONLY REASON WE WOULD HAVE A BUDGET SHORTFALL IS BECAUSE YOU WOULD CONTINUE WANTING TO SPEND MONEY AT THE SAME RATE AND CONTINUE ADDING POSITIONS. 
          SO I GET THAT YOU'RE GONNA TRIM BACK THE GROWTH, BUT YOU ACTUALLY WILL HAVE A ADDITIONAL DOLLARS IN THE GENERAL FUND ITSELF. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? Y YES MA'AM. 
          AND THE MOST SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN YEAR OVER YEAR BUDGET IS $45 MILLION. 
          THAT'S GOING TO POLICE AND FIRE FOR THE MEET AND CONFER AGREEMENT. 
          AND 7.23% UNDERSTAND INCREASES. 
          I UNDERSTAND. 
          BUT THE REALITY IS THE GENERAL FUND IS GONNA INCREASE $60 MILLION AND 45 MILLION OF THAT IS POLICE AND FIRE. 
          YES MA'AM. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THE SHORTFALL IS CAUSED BY ADDITIONAL SPENDING, WHICH INCLUDES INCREASING THE PAY FOR THE POLICE ACCORDING TO THE AGREEMENT WE'VE MADE. 
          AGREED. 
          SO WITH THAT, SOMETHING VERY INTERESTING WAS SAID. 
          SO THANK YOU FOR INVITING TO LATE. 
          I'M SORRY I DIDN'T CATCH WHAT YOUR NAME WAS. 
          DO YOU WANT JENNY CHIN? JEAN CHIN. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, YOU SAID SOMETHING I HADN'T HEARD BEFORE AND SO I WANNA MAKE SURE I'M HEARING IT CORRECTLY. 
          'CAUSE THEN ACTUALLY, JACK, YOU SAID SOMETHING SIMILAR AND WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS YOU'RE SAYING THAT 1.5% COLA, ARE YOU SAYING THAT THAT'S ALREADY BAKED INTO THE COST OF THE ADEC THAT YOU'RE RECOMMENDING? THAT'S CORRECT. 
          CURRENTLY, THERE IS AN ASSUMPTION THAT THERE WILL BE 1.5% COLA PAID STARTING FROM 2040, WELL, 6 20 46 ONCE YOU IMPLEMENT THE A DC MODEL. 
          AND THEN JACK, I THINK YOU SAID THAT IT WAS THAT WAY ALSO WITH THE ERF, IS THAT WHAT YOU WERE SAYING ON THE MAYBE PAGE? YEP. 
          SO ON THE ERR IN INSTANCE, SINCE THEIR COLAS ARE AUTOMATIC, THERE IS A BUILT-IN ASSUMPTION FOR COLAS THAT WILL BE PAID, UM, EACH YEAR. 
          AND HOW MUCH IS BUILT INTO THEIRS? IT'S 2.2%, I BELIEVE, IN THE LONG TERM FOR TIER B WITH A MAXIMUM OF 3%. 
          DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH IT IS FOR TIER A? 2.5%? 2.5. 
          OKAY. 
          SO I'VE NEVER HEARD THAT BEFORE. 
          UM, THAT'S VERY INTERESTING. 
          [01:10:01]
UM, SO PART OF THE AMORTIZATION OF THE NUMBERS OVER THE 30 YEARS INCLUDES FUTURE COLAS IN, IN BOTH SCENARIOS. 
          UM, BECAUSE IF, IF THERE'S AN ASSUMPTION THAT A COLA'S GONNA BE GIVEN, THEN IT'S AMORTIZED OVER THE ENTIRE PERIOD. 
          OKAY. 
          SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE, WE'RE NOTING A COUPLE THINGS HERE. 
          UM, ON PAGE FOUR OF YOUR DELOITTE, UM, PRESENTATION, YOU'RE SHOWING THIS BLUE LINE IS THE COLA FOR OUR POLICE FIRE, BUT THE OTHER TWO, THIS IS THE COLAS FOR ERFA AND B, RIGHT? YES, MA'AM. 
          YEAH. 
          SO THIS IS WHERE I'M GONNA GO BACK TO WHAT I SAID FROM THE VERY BEGINNING IS THAT THESE COLAS SHOULD HAVE PARODY. 
          THAT'S THE WRONG SLIDE UP THERE. 
          THIS SHOULD BE SLIDE, IT'S SLIDE FOUR. 
          FOUR. 
          YEAH. 
          AND I THINK WHEN YOU, ANYBODY LOOKS AT THIS AND YOU SEE THAT HUGE GAP ON HOW WE'RE TREATING OUR EMPLOYEES, WHETHER YOU'RE WEARING A BADGE OR NOT WEARING A BADGE, THIS IS PROBLEMATIC TO ME. 
          AND I WOULD THINK WE WOULD, ALTHOUGH THEY'RE DIFFERENT PLANS THAT WE WOULD TREAT RETIREES WHO ARE ACTUALLY IN THE SAME SITUATION, IN THE SAME KIND OF WAY. 
          WHEN YOU LOOK AT HOUSTON THAT YOU PRESENTED ON PAGE FIVE, THE POLICE FIRE HAS A MAXIMUM OF 4% COLA, BUT THEIR GENERAL PENSION HAS A MAXIMUM OF 2%. 
          AND IT SEEMS TO ME OF THE COLAS THAT I'VE STUDIED SO FAR THAT WHEN THERE ISN'T A PARODY OF THE TWO PLANS, IT'S ACTUALLY THE POLICE FIRE THAT HAS A BETTER PLAN THAN THE GENERAL. 
          WOULD YOU SAY THAT'S TRUE DELOITTE? WELL, IN THE INSTANCE OF, YOU KNOW, HOUSTON, THERE'S ALSO DIFFERENCES IN THE WAY THEY'RE INVESTING THEIR FUNDS. 
          SO THE FUNDED RATIO ALSO PLAYS IN TERMS OF AFFORDABILITY. 
          BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT PLANS ACROSS THE STATE AND YOU SEE DIFFERENT PLANS FOR POLICE, FIRE AND NON-SWORN, WOULD YOU SAY THAT THEY'RE EITHER AT PARITY OR THE BETTER PLAN WOULD BE THE SWORN OFFICERS? THERE ARE DIFFERENCES IN THE DESIGN JUST DUE TO, YOU KNOW, THE NATURE OF THE WORK. 
          UM, AND IT'S NOT JUST ON COAL, BUT ALSO ON BENEFIT PROVISIONS, LIKE WHEN THEY'RE ELIGIBLE TO RETIRE. 
          WELL, I THINK IF WE GOT THAT CHART, WE'RE GONNA SEE THAT THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENS BECAUSE IT'S A DIFFERENT JOB AND IT'S A DIFFERENT REQUIREMENT THAT WE NEED FROM PEOPLE. 
          I LOVE EVERYBODY THAT WORKS FOR THE CITY, BUT LET ME TELL YOU, OUR POLICE AND FIRE, THEY ARE NOT HOME ON THE NIGHTS AND WEEKENDS. 
          THEY ARE MISSING OUT ON HOLIDAYS. 
          WE DO HAVE SOME 24 HOUR WORKERS, BUT GENERALLY EVERYBODY WHO'S GOT A BADGE ON, THEY'RE WORKING CRAZY THINGS. 
          THEY'RE MISSING OUT ON PART OF THEIR LIFE FOR US. 
          THEY HAVE A DANGER IN THEIR JOB THAT MOST OF OUR OTHER JOBS DON'T HAVE. 
          AND THERE'S A REASON THAT WE TREAT THEM DIFFERENTLY. 
          THEY ALSO HAVE A TENURE OF SERVICE. 
          I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT NUMBER IS. 
          PERHAPS JACK, YOU KNOW IT OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD, BUT I THINK THE AVERAGE TENURE FOR ERF IS SOMETHING LIKE FIVE, SEVEN YEARS, BUT THE AVERAGE TENURE FOR POLICE FIRE IS LIKE 20 SOMETHING YEARS. 
          IS THAT RIGHT? MS. MILLER? THAT'D BE THE LAST QUESTION. 
          I I'LL HAVE TO CHECK THAT. 
          THAT'S, I'VE NEVER HEARD ANYTHING LIKE THAT BEFORE. 
          OKAY. 
          WELL I THINK IT'S EXTREMELY, SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT. 
          AND THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN WITH US THE LONGEST, I THINK WE OWE THEM MORE. 
          I THINK WE HAVE A DUTY TO THEM, AND I'M NOT SEEING THAT REFLECTED IN THIS PLAN. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, I WOULD LIKE A SECOND ROUND. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          WE GOT SOME NONE COMMITTEE MEMBERS, SO GET A CHANCE TO SPEAK. 
          UM, CHAIRMAN CHU, I MEAN, CHU YEAH,  CHU. 
          THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. 
          UM, I JUST WANNA UNDERSTAND, AND I'M COME, I'M CATCHING UP WITH EVERYONE. 
          SO FORGIVE ME IF I, IF I ASK QUESTIONS AND YOU CAN JUST SAY, ALREADY ASKED AND ANSWERED, ASK ME LATER. 
          UM, SO THE, OUR OBLIGATION AT THIS STATE IS JUST TO TAKE CARE OF THIS PLAN RIGHT NOW, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH COLA, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. 
          OUR, OUR REQUIREMENT IS TO SUBMIT A PLAN THAT ACHIEVES FULL FUNDING IN 30 YEARS, PERIOD. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND THE, AND THE ADDITION, THE FOUR OPTIONS ARE ONLY FOR ABOUT COLA, THEY'RE NOT ABOUT FUNDING THE PLAN, IS THAT CORRECT? WE BELIEVE THAT WE CAN ABSORB THE COST OF FULLY FUNDING THE PLAN WITHIN OUR REGULAR REVENUE STREAMS OF THE GENERAL FUND. 
          AND WE'RE COMMITTED TO DOING THAT EVEN THOUGH IT'S GONNA TAKE SOME CUTS TO GET US THERE. 
          CORRECT. 
          BUT IF, AND IF WE WANTED TO BE ABLE TO USE ANY OF THOSE OPTIONS DOWN THE ROAD, 'CAUSE I KNOW EACH OF THEM TAKE A WHILE, WE COULD ALSO USE THEM FOR THE PLAN. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. 
          AND ON THE C QUESTION, UM, I GUESS AS YOU'RE, SINCE THERE'S A LOT OF QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ON THE COLI, IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO KNOW, UH, HOW MANY, UH, WHAT ON THE CITY RESEARCH THAT YOU'RE DOING, HOW MANY OF IT IS ALSO TIED TO PERFORMANCE WHERE CO I MEAN, IF C IS SEEN MORE AS AN ADDITIONAL BENEFIT WHEN WE'RE DOING WELL 
          [01:15:01]
AS OPPOSED TO, UH, AN ENTITLEMENT, UH, I THINK IT'LL BE VERY INTERESTING JUST TO LEARN HOW OTHER CITIES DO THAT. 
          UM, THE OTHER QUESTION THAT I HAD IS ON SLIDE 12 OF THE RESTORATION PLAN UPDATE, WHEN YOU DO TALK ABOUT THAT 1%, UM, I'M, AND WHERE YOU SAY JUST ANY KIND OF POSITIVE PERFORMANCE, UM, MR. ARLAN, I WOULD HOPE ALSO THAT THAT WOULD MEAN THAT POSITIVE PERFORMANCE INCLUDING THE ABSORPTION OF THAT ADDITIONAL COLA EXPENSE, RIGHT? SO WE CAN'T GO REGRESSIVE IN ORDER TO PAY THE COLA. 
          ARE YOU WITH ME? SORRY. 
          WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IS, IF WE WANNA DO THIS ADDITIONAL 1% ON THIS, UM, TO BRIDGE THAT GAP AND IT'S DEPENDENT UPON A POSITIVE RETURN, THAT THAT POSITIVE RETURN IS ENOUGH TO BE ABLE TO ABSORB THAT MONEY THAT WE WOULD GIVE, NOT JUST OF ANY NUMBER POSITIVE RETURN. 
          SO THAT IS NOT HOW IT WAS INTENDED, BUT THAT'S AN EXTRA LAYER. 
          IT WAS INTENDED MAKING THIS UP, YOU KNOW, IF 0.01 RETURN RIGHT, IS POSITIVE. 
          IF THAT DOES NOT GENERATE ENOUGH, UH, INTEREST INCOME, IF YOU WILL, TO COVER THE EXPENSE OF THE 1%, THAT WAS OKAY IN OUR, OUR SCENARIO. 
          GOT IT. 
          BUT YOU'RE SAYING THAT, YOU KNOW, IF IT TAKES $5 MILLION TO COVER THE 1% EXPENSE, THEN YOU WOULD WANT TO SEE AT LEAST $5 MILLION EARNED. 
          WELL, I WOULDN'T WANT TO BE REGRESSIVE. 
          MM-HMM. 
           ABOUT IT. 
          UNDERSTOOD. 
          IS MY, IS WHAT I JUST WANNA UNDERSTAND IN TERMS OF BEING ABLE TO BE A RESPONSIBLE PERSON, YOU KNOW, FIDUCIARILY. 
          UM, AND THEN THE OTHER THING THAT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE OF IS I'M NOT ON GPFM EITHER, SO AGAIN, FORGIVE ME, BUT IN LOOKING AT THE MONETIZATION OF, UH, THE POTENTIAL MONETIZATION OF ASSETS, UM, WELL, DOES THE ANALYSIS INCLUDE, UM, ANY, UM, INCOME OR POSITIVE CASH FLOW TO THE CITY THAT WE ARE CURRENTLY GENERATING SO THAT WE CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT MONEY WE'D BE LOSING IF WE, UH, DISPOSE OF THOSE ASSETS? SO, SO YES, THAT SHOULD BE A CONSIDERATION. 
          UM, MOST OF THE ASSETS, UM, OAK CLIFF MUNICIPAL CENTER IS ON THE, THE LIST. 
          THERE'S A COUPLE OF OLD LIBRARY PROPERTIES ON THE LIST, THE BIG AUTO POUNDS ON THE LIST. 
          THERE'S, THERE'S A LIST OF 10 PROPERTIES THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. 
          YEAH, I SAW THE LIST. 
          I WAS JUST CURIOUS OF WHAT IN THE ANALYSIS THAT ALSO SAYS, BUT WE'RE CURRENTLY BRINGING IN X AND AND, AND INCOME FROM THEM. 
          SO THAT THAT'S PART OF THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE DISPOSAL. 
          AND, AND WE, WE HAVE TO CONSIDER, THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS UP. 
          IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT POINT. 
          UM, THERE'S OFTEN BEEN CONVERSATION ABOUT THE CANTON STREET OR CENTRAL SERVICE CENTER AND UH, WE HAVE A LOT OF OPERATIONS THERE, RIGHT? AND SO WE WOULD WANT TO, IF WE SOLD THAT PROPERTY, WE NEED TO GET AT LEAST OUT OF IT TO MOVE OUR SERVICES SOMEWHERE ELSE. 
          EXACTLY RIGHT. 
          WELL, EXACTLY. 
          A FLEET MAINTENANCE FACILITY, ET CETERA. 
          SO, UH, WE WOULD ONLY BE TALKING ABOUT USING NET SURPLUS OR NET MONETIZATION TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE TO THE FILE FOR ALL OF THEM. 
          YES, SIR. 
          YES, MA'AM. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT'S WHY. 
          THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. 
          CHAIRMAN ULA. 
          THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. 
          UM, THANK Y'ALL FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. 
          I JUST WANT TO START BY SAYING, I, I, I THINK THAT IT'S A REALLY BAD APPROACH FOR US TO PIN UNIFORMED VERSUS CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES IN OUR CITY. 
          AND THAT SHOULD NOT BE THE NARRATIVE OF THIS CONVERSATION. 
          UM, WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO ALL OF THE EMPLOYEES WHEN IT COMES TO MAINTAINING PENSION FUNDS. 
          AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO NOT CONFLATE TWO DIFFERENT FUNDS, UM, WITH TWO DIFFERENT PLANS. 
          UM, AND PINNING ONE VERSUS THE OTHER. 
          THE, THE REALITY IS, IS WE HAVE ERF EMPLOYEES WITHIN BOTH POLICE AND FIRE THAT HELP MAKE THEM FUNCTIONAL. 
          UM, AND I THINK THAT THAT'S IMPORTANT, UH, TO HIGHLIGHT. 
          SO I, I DON'T THINK THAT IT'S MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE TO TAKE CARE OF ONE ENTITY VERSUS THE OTHER. 
          AND I THINK THAT THAT'S IMPORTANT, UH, PART OF THE CONVERSATION THAT WE NEED TO BE HAVING. 
          UM, I WANT TO SPEAK ON THE SCENARIOS THAT, UM, UH, UH, MS. STEWART WAS MENTIONING, SPECIFICALLY ASKING Y'ALL TO GIVE US, UH, A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL, UM, WITH THE INFLUX. 
          I, I'D LIKE A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL, UM, REQUESTED SPECIFICALLY ON WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE WITH, UM, AND, AND, AND YOU'D HAVE TO LOOK IN THE PORTFOLIOS, UH, OF COURSE OF, OF WHAT THE POTENTIAL, UH, MONETIZING OF ASSETS IS. 
          UM, BUT IN, IN DIFFERENT SCENARIOS, IF WE COULD SEE LIKE A TIERED STRUCTURE OF, UM, AN INFUSION OF X AMOUNT OF DOLLARS AND WHAT THAT DOES TO THE PLAN, WE'VE SEEN THE PLAN LAID OUT RIGHT NOW IT WITH ACCOMPLISHING IN, IN THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION, UM, ABSORBING IN THE GENERAL FUND. 
          WHAT DOES IT DO TO THAT SCALE THAT YOU'VE GIVEN US FIVE YEARS FROM NOW, IF WE'VE PUT X AMOUNT AND WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE WITH THREE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF INVESTMENT. 
          I KNOW THAT ONE MEETING YOU HAD MR. CHAIR A WHILE BACK HAD, UM, 
          [01:20:02]
A, A FEW DIFFERENT, UM, AMOUNTS THAT YOU SUGGESTED, UH, JACK, UH, JUST AS HYPOTHETICALS AND I'D, I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT, TO SEE WHAT, WHAT IT IS THAT WE'RE, WE'RE WORKING TOWARDS. 
          I THINK THAT THE CONVERSATION RIGHT NOW IS REALLY ABOUT, UM, UH, MAKING SURE THAT THE FUND IS HEALTHY AND, UH, FOR LONGEVITY PURPOSES. 
          UM, I, I THINK THAT THAT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO HIGHLIGHT. 
          WE CAN'T CON CONTINUE TO CONFLATE, UH, THE, THE FACT THAT WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT OFFERING YOU ALL A COLA OR GETTING YOUR FUND HEALTHY. 
          WE NEED TO BE DOING BOTH. 
          UH, AND I THINK THAT THE MAIN PRIORITY IN ORDER TO BEING ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH A SUSTAINABLE COLA IS GETTING THE FUND HEALTHY AND FULLY FUNDED. 
          SO THAT'S, TO ME MY BIGGEST PRIORITY. 
          AND I, I WOULD LIKE FOR US TO, UH, CONTINUE TO EXPLORE THE OPTIONS THAT WE'VE, UM, HEARD OF. 
          I KNOW THAT, UH, THE DART MONIES IS, IS SOMETHING THAT IS A LONG TERM, BUT IT'S AT LEAST A CONVERSATION FOR US TO BE HAVING TO BE HAVING BECAUSE, UH, WE'RE, WE'RE GONNA HAVE STEPPED APPROACH TO THIS. 
          UH, I DON'T BELIEVE ANY DECISION WE'RE GONNA GIVE YOU ALL AND DIRECTION ON IN JUNE FOR US TO HAVE THE PLAN READY BY THE END OF THE YEAR IS GOING TO BE INCLUSIVE OF, UH, WHAT WE HOPE TO ACCOMPLISH THAT'S GOING TO LIGHTEN THE BURDEN OF WHATEVER PLAN IT IS THAT WE TURN IN THIS YEAR. 
          THAT'S THE WAY THAT I VIEW THIS. 
          AND SO THIS IS A, A, A A, A TIERED APPROACH. 
          I, I WOULD SAY, ON HOW WE'RE GOING, WE'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO GIVE AN ANSWER, UH, IN JUNE. 
          THAT'S GOING TO BE THE END ALL. 
          AND, AND I THINK THAT THAT'S A GOOD THING. 
          UH, WE HAVE GIVEN ESSENTIALLY A PLAN THAT FISCALLY IS GOING TO BE THE WORST CASE SCENARIO, UH, ON US HAVING TO ABSORB THE SHORTFALLS THAT YOU'VE PRESENTED TO US WITHOUT CUTTING SERVICES, INCLUDING THE SERVICES THAT WE ARE COMMITTED TO INCREASING THE IN, IN POLICE AND FIRE IN OUR, IN OUR GENERAL FUND BUDGET. 
          UM, SO I, I, I, UH, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE WHAT THOSE SCENARIOS LOOK LIKE. 
          I WOULD LIKE TO SEE, UM, I KNOW THAT Y'ALL HAVE BEEN LOOKING THROUGH THE PORTFOLIO TO GIVE US, UM, SOME DETAIL ON THAT, BUT, UH, IF, IF THE SCENARIOS OF WHAT THAT DOES TO THE AMORTIZATION OF THE, UH, SCALE THAT YOU'VE GIVEN US, CAN YOU SHOW US WHAT THAT WOULD, WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE IN, SO WE CAN INCLUDE THAT IN, UH, OUR CONSIDERATIONS, PLEASE. 
          YES, SIR. 
          I'LL GET YOU A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT SCENARIOS. 
          THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. 
          I JUST, I I JUST WANT TO ASK THAT, UH, WE FOCUS ON, UM, GETTING THE FUND HEALTHY, UH, AND MAKING SURE THAT IT'S, IT'S A SUSTAINABLE OPTION, UH, MOVING FORWARD. 
          I THINK THAT WE'RE CONFLATING A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS THAT SHOULDN'T BE A PART OF WHAT, WHAT IT IS THAT WE'RE LOOKING TOWARDS. 
          THANK YOU, UH, CHAIRMAN MIDDLETON. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, SPECIFICALLY, WHAT IS THE AVERAGE MONTHLY CHECK FOR BOTH PENSIONS? CAN YOU FIND THAT OUT FOR US? YOU DON'T HAVE TO LOOK IT UP RIGHT NOW. 
          Y UH, I'LL PROVIDE IT. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          AND I'D ALSO LIKE TO NOTE THIS 13TH CHECK. 
          A LOT OF TIMES WHEN PEOPLE START HEARING ABOUT IT, THEY THINK, OH, THE CHECKS I'VE GOT IN THE OTHER 12 MONTHS OF THE YEAR, I'M GONNA GET ONE JUST LIKE IT. 
          BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AT ALL. 
          WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A SMALL PERCENTAGE. 
          AND SO I'M WONDERING IF YOU COULD SHOW US MAYBE IN A TABLE A PENSIONER WHO GETS 30,000 A YEAR, 40,000 A YEAR, 50,000, 60,000, WHAT DOES THAT 13TH CHECK AMOUNT TOTAL LIKE? IS IT A THOUSAND DOLLARS? IS IT A HUNDRED DOLLARS? LIKE HOW MUCH MONEY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? WE WILL PROVIDE, THANK YOU. 
          THAT WOULD BE GREAT. 
          AND A MEMO'S PERFECTLY FINE. 
          UM, INTERIM CITY MANAGER, YOU, WHEN YOU WERE OUTLINING THIS INTRODUCTION, YOU SAID THAT YOU WILL HAVE CONSIDERATIONS FOR THIS PLAN THAT INCLUDE ALL THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AND ALL THE PEOPLE OF DALLAS. 
          AND I'D JUST LIKE TO ADD IN THAT PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE ALSO CONSIDERING RECRUITING AND RETENTION FOR ESPECIALLY DPD, BUT ALSO DFR, FAIRNESS TO ALL OUR EMPLOYEES AND RETIREES GOVERNANCE AND FISCAL RESTRAINT IN OUR ANNUAL BUDGET AND FUTURE BUDGETS. 
          BECAUSE IF ANY OF US, IF WE WERE LIKE HOTEL CALIFORNIA AND WE HAD TO STAY ON CITY COUNCIL AND WE HAD TO LIVE WITH THE YEARS THAT ARE COMING IN THIS CHART, WE WOULD NEVER BE ABLE TO DO THIS BUDGET. 
          WE ARE FOR SURE KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD TO THINK THAT WE ARE GONNA TAKE $500 MILLION TO PENSION IN SOME OF THESE YEARS. 
          I DON'T KNOW HOW, I DON'T KNOW HOW THE BUDGET WILL WORK. 
          I LITERALLY HAVE NO IDEA HOW WE WOULD BE ABLE TO CONTINUE THESE KINDS OF CUTS. 
          AND IF WE DO THE FIVE YEAR RAMP UP, I'M EXTREMELY CONCERNED THAT YOU'RE ALREADY HAVING STRUGGLES TO GET US THERE THIS YEAR, BUT YOU GOT FOUR MORE YEARS WHERE YOU HAVE TO FIND THE SAME DOLLAR AMOUNT OF CUTS. 
          SO FOR ME, I WOULD JUST GO, LET'S DO TRADITIONAL, LET'S DO THE, TAKE THE BIG HICKEY RIGHT NOW. 
          LET'S USE ARPA MONEY THAT WE HAVE LEFT. 
          LET'S 
          [01:25:01]
SELL EVERYTHING WE CAN AND LET'S, LET'S ACTUALLY DO THE WORK THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN, THE HARD WORK NOW. 
          AND INSTEAD, THIS IS GONNA BE THE LONGEST BANDAID PULL EVER. 
          AND IT IS GONNA BE SO PAINFUL FOR THIS CITY AND WHERE WE GO WITH TAXES TO ACCOMMODATE THE EXTRA DOLLARS THAT WE'LL BE ASKING OUR TAX DOLLARS BECAUSE WE'RE PUSHING THIS FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD. 
          THIS IS GONNA COST MORE BY DOING A FIVE YEAR RAMP UP THAN IF WE JUST DID THE TRADITIONAL PLAN. 
          OKAY, THAT'S TRUE. 
          I JUST, I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW WE'RE GONNA DO THIS CHAIRWOMAN FLAPPING. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTION, SHARON WILLIS, SECOND ROUND? SURE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SO, UM, I, I THINK ON THE ADDITIONAL FUNDING STRATEGIES, UH, WE'RE ACKNOWLEDGING THAT NOT ALL OF THOSE ARE GOING TO BE AN IMMEDIATE FIX FOR THIS YEAR. 
          YOU POINTED OUT THAT WHEN WE GO IN WITH OUR FSRP, OUR FUNDING, SOUNDNESS RESTORATION PLAN, THAT IT DOES NEED TO BE, UH, THE HAY IN THE BARN VERSUS, UM, SOMETHING TO COME. 
          SO I GET THAT. 
          THE OTHER PART OF THAT IS THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, BEFORE WE HAND MONEY OVER TO THE FUND, WHICH WE'RE ALREADY DOING, I MEAN, TO THE TUNE OF $184 MILLION THIS YEAR, AND YOU LOOK AT THESE CHARTS AND THE NUMBER JUST GETS BIGGER AND BIGGER AND BIGGER, THAT, UM, I WANNA PARTNER WITH THE PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE, WITH THE MEMBERS OF THE FUND TO JUST BE SURE OBJECTIVELY THAT THE PERFORMANCE IS GOING TO BE WHAT IT SHOULD. 
          BECAUSE WE'RE KIND OF BETTING ON THE COME HERE. 
          AND, UM, SINCE WE'RE DOING THAT FOR THE TAXPAYERS, UM, I JUST, WE NEED TO BE FEELING A LITTLE MORE SOLID ABOUT THAT. 
          SO THE CITY HAS THINGS TO WORK OUT WITH REGARD TO THE THINGS WE CAN MONETIZE. 
          UM, THE FUND TELLS US THEY'VE STILL GOT THINGS TO WORK OUT. 
          UM, BUT I WANTED TO GO BACK. 
          MR. IRELAND, YOU SAID SOMETHING ABOUT IN 2008, WHAT WAS THE FUNDING LEVEL THAT YOU SAID THE THE FUND HAD, UM, IN 2008, THE FUNDING WAS AT 89.5. 
          SO 90%? YES. 
          AND OKAY, SO JENNY'S POINTING OUT AT THAT TIME THAT THE ASSUMED RATE OF RETURN WAS 8.5%, VERSUS NOW IT'S 6.5%. 
          SO THIS PART OF THE CALCULATION, SO NOW WE'RE AT 39% AND IT WAS AT ALMOST 90%. 
          SO, UH, THAT'S WHAT'S CAUSING THE TAXPAYER BA BAILOUT IS WHAT HAPPENED, UH, BACK THEN. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, EVERY, NOBODY WANTS TO BRING THAT UP, BUT IF WE'RE GONNA GET INTO IT, LET'S GET INTO IT. 
          UM, WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT THE TAX RATIFICATION ELECTION, I MEAN, NOBODY WANTS TO GO TO THE TAXPAYERS AND ASK FOR THAT KIND OF INCREASE. 
          HOWEVER, IT'S ALLOWING THEM TO DECIDE, AND I THINK THIS HELPS BY PUTTING THIS, UM, PERSPECTIVE ON THE FUND TO LET THE, THE TAXPAYER DECIDE SHOULD WE GO THAT ROUTE? AND WE MAY NOT WANNA DO THAT. 
          UM, THAT IF WE'RE HANDING THAT MONEY OVER THAT THE PERFORMANCE IS THERE. 
          SO I THINK THIS HELPS OVERALL IN WHAT THE DELIVERY AND THE PERFORMANCE MEASURES ARE. 
          UM, BUT LET ME GO BACK ON THE COLA. 
          MR. ISLAND, YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE 1.5% WOULD BE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE DISCOUNT RATE AND THE EXPECTED RETURN RATE. 
          SO WHEN, BY, BY ASSIGNING THAT SOMEPLACE ELSE, I MEAN, ISN'T THAT GAP WHAT HELPS US FURTHER REDUCE THE UNFUNDED LIABILITY? I MEAN THAT 1.5%, SO WE'VE GOT THE DISCOUNT RATE OF 5%, WE'RE HOPING FOR THIS RETURN OF 6.5% AND WE'RE SAYING THIS 1.5% WOULD GO TO COLA, BUT ISN'T THAT HEADROOM? WHAT HELPS US FURTHER REDUCE THE UNFUNDED LIABILITY? SHE'S NODDING . 
          IF, IF YOU'RE SUGGESTING TO NOT GIVE THAT AND INSTEAD USE THE ALL OF THE RATE OF RETURN TOWARDS IMPROVING THE FUND, THE UNFUNDED STATUS, THEN YES. 
          I'M JUST TRYING TO DISSECT THIS. 
          YES, MA'AM. 
          SO IT'S LIKE WE'RE SAYING THAT BECAUSE THERE'S THIS HEADROOM THAT EXISTS THAT CAN JUST GO TO THE COLA, BUT WHAT IT DOES IS NOT ALLOW US TO CONTINUE MAKING THE FUND HEALTHY. 
          YES, MA'AM. 
          SO, UM, YEAH, ONE MORE QUESTION. 
          OKAY. 
          PAGE 17, YOU TALKED ABOUT, UH, IF THERE'S A VARIANCE BETWEEN THE FUND AND THE CITY WHEN WE'RE CALCULATING THE A DC, UH, THAT IF IT'S GREATER THAN 2% VARIANCE, UH, WE'D AVERAGE IT. 
          I MEAN, THAT'S PROBABLY AT LEAST $4 MILLION WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. 
          AND ALSO, WHY WOULDN'T WE HAVE AN OBJECTIVE RESOURCE TABULATE THAT FOR US VERSUS HE SAID SHE SAID, OR THEY SAID, OR COOL. 
          SO WHEN DETERMINING ACTUARIAL LIABILITIES, THERE'S A RANGE OF ASSUMPTIONS THAT YOU CAN USE. 
          SO DIFFERENT ACTUARIES CAN ELECT TO USE DIFFERENT ASSUMPTIONS. 
          OF COURSE, THESE ASSUMPTIONS ARE APPROVED BY PENSION FUND BOARDS BEFORE THEY'RE IMPLEMENT, IMPLEMENTED IN, UM, THE RESULTS OF THE VALUATION. 
          SO, AND THE MOST SIGNIFICANT ONE BEING INVESTMENT RETURN, DO YOU USE SIX AND A HALF? DO YOU USE SIX AND THREE QUARTER 7%? WHAT'S THE REASONABLE RANGE? UM, THE COLA ASSUMPTION, AS YOU POINTED OUT BEFORE, IS ANOTHER ONE AS WELL. 
          HAVING THAT 1.5% ASSUMPTION BUILT IN RIGHT NOW DOES REDUCE THE FUNDED RATIO BECAUSE IT INCREASES THE LIABILITY THAT YOU'RE PLANNING 
          [01:30:01]
FOR. 
          UM, BUT IT'S IN THE ASSUMPTIONS IN THE DPF EVALUATIONS CURRENTLY. 
          BUT I THINK YOU'RE GOING BACK TO MY LAST THAT'S, THAT'S YOUR LAST QUESTION, BUT THAT WAS MY LAST QUESTION. 
          SHE ANSWER. 
          YOU CAN COME BACK. 
          YOU CAN COME BACK. 
          OKAY. 
          CHAIRMAN MORENO, THANK YOU CHAIR. 
          UM, I'M GONNA GO BACK TO PAGE SEVEN AND JUST START OFF WITH, UM, THE TRADITIONAL SCENARIO. 
          UM, IT'S NOT HIGHLIGHTED. 
          IS THERE A REASON THAT THAT ONE'S NOT BEING PRESENTED TODAY? SO THE TRADITIONAL MODEL, UH, AS LAID OUT AS ONE OF THE SCENARIOS BY CHIRON, THEY GAVE US FIVE DIFFERENT SCENARIOS, WHICH THEY SAID ALL FIVE OF THEM ARE REASONABLE AND ALL FIVE OF THEM WILL MEET THE PRBS REQUIREMENTS. 
          OUR RECOMMENDATION IS THE FIVE YEAR STEP UP. 
          'CAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE BELIEVE WE CAN BOTH BEST MANAGE WITHIN OUR BUDGET. 
          WHILE, UM, DPFP STAFF HAVE INDICATED, OF COURSE, THAT WOULD BE THEIR PREFERENCE. 
          THEY UNDERSTAND THAT WE HAVE BUDGETARY CONSTRAINTS, THEREFORE THEY'RE RECOMMENDING THE THREE YEAR STEP UP. 
          SO I'VE FOCUSED ON THEIR RECOMMENDATION. 
          AND OUR RECOMMENDATION IS THE TWO I'VE FOCUSED ON. 
          IF WE WANT TO FOCUS ON THE TRADITIONAL MODEL, THE FIRST YEAR STEP UP IS $66 MILLION. 
          THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT MODEL AND WHAT I HAVE, UH, RECOMMENDED IS ABOUT 50 MILLION. 
          SO YOUR SHORTFALL FOR NEXT YEAR GOES FROM 38.4 MILLION PLUS 50, SO $88.4 MILLION. 
          SO TO NOT SLOWLY PULL OFF THE BANDAID, WE WE'RE GONNA CUT, YOU KNOW, DEAL WITH IT ALL AT ONCE. 
          WE NEED BETWEEN NOW AND AUGUST THE 13TH TO FIND $88.4 MILLION TO ELIMINATE FROM OUR BUDGET, AND THAT WILL BE FOREVERMORE. 
          SO THE SHORTFALL FOR THE TRADITIONAL WOULD BE $88 MILLION. 
          AND WHAT'S THE SHORTFALL FOR THE, FOR YOUR RECOMMENDATION ON STAFF? 38.4. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THEN WHAT IS OUR ARPA BALANCE OF UNOBLIGATED DOLLARS? NOW I KNOW WE HAVE IDENTIFIED PROJECTS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH, BUT THERE'S ALSO PROJECTS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN, UM, APPROVED YET OR, OR, UH, ALLOTTED FOR. 
          AND SO WHAT IS OUR BALANCE FOR ARPA? I, I WOULD HAVE TO GET TO THAT, BUT LET ME SAY ABOUT THAT. 
          THE ARPA DOLLARS ARE A ONE-TIME SOURCE OF FUNDS. 
          SO, OKAY, WE CAN PUT $60 MILLION IN THIS YEAR, BUT THEN NEXT YEAR WE GOTTA RIP THE BANDAID OFF AND FIND THAT $60 MILLION OUT OF LOCAL FUNDS BECAUSE ONCE THE ARPA DOLLARS ARE GONE, THEY'RE GONE. 
          AND THIS IS AN ONGOING EVERY YEAR, UH, COMMITMENT. 
          BUT I WILL FIND THE ANSWER FOR YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, A AGAIN, SO WE, WE CAME UP WITH A, A NUMBER OF, OF REALLY GOOD IDEAS ON HOW TO GET ADDITIONAL DOLLARS AND, AND, UH, PROJECTS. 
          WHAT CAN WE BE DOING TO START PLUGGING THOSE NUMBERS IN? I KNOW A LOT, IT'S A LOT OF PLANNING, WHETHER IT BE DART OR SELLING ASSETS. 
          UH, BUT WE'RE, IT SEEMS THAT WE'VE ONLY HAVE THE APPRAISAL FOR ONE PROJECT SO FAR. 
          UM, IS THERE, IS THE TIMING OF THIS DELAYING, UM, UH, JUST OUTLINING WHAT, WHAT IT CAN BE. 
          I MEAN, WHAT, WHAT ELSE CAN WE BE DOING IN ORDER TO GET THESE NUMBERS TO YOU A LITTLE BIT QUICKER? SO, SO WHAT I THINK WE NEED TO DO IS WE SHOULD MOVE FORWARD. 
          OUR RECOMMENDATION IS THAT YOU MOVE FORWARD WITH A PLAN THAT WE KNOW THAT WE CAN FUND. 
          AND THE PLAN THAT WE KNOW WE CAN FUND IS A FIVE YEAR STEP UP. 
          IT IS NOT INCREASING THE COLAS AT THIS POINT IN TIME, DOING THE BASICS TO GET A FULLY FUNDED SYSTEM IN THE 30 YEARS, MEET THE PRB REQUIREMENTS, MEET THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS, THEN YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY. 
          THIS ISN'T A ONCE AND DONE, I MEAN, EVERYBODY TALKS ABOUT KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD. 
          I AM NOT KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD. 
          I WANT YOU TO APPROVE A PLAN THAT WILL FULLY FUND IN 30 YEARS. 
          THAT IS OUR LEGAL AND MORAL OBLIGATION. 
          NOW, IF YOU WANNA SWEETEN THE DEAL, BECAUSE I, I BELIEVE THAT, UH, PENSIONERS SHOULD HAVE SOME TYPE OF COLA AT SOME POINT THAT GETS ADDED ON WHEN WE CAN DO IT. 
          BUT MY RECOMMENDATION, APPROVE WHAT YOU HAVE TO APPROVE THAT YOU CAN MANAGE WITHIN YOUR BUDGET. 
          THAT'S MY RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL. 
          THANK YOU WITH THAT, UH, CHAIRMAN STEWART, ANY OTHER QUESTION? I ACTUALLY, I HAVE QUITE A LIST OF QUESTIONS, BUT I'LL TRY TO PICK MY TOP TWO. 
          HOW ABOUT THAT, ? OH YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, JACK, I HEAR YOU ON, WE NEED A PLAN AND I THINK YOU HAVE PUT SOME OF THE, THE PARAMETERS OF A PLAN ABSOLUTELY. 
          TOGETHER. 
          AND, UM, SO I'M TRYING TO TWEAK IT, SWEETEN IT, WHATEVER WORD WE WANNA USE. 
          UM, AND I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE WOULD BE ABLE TO PAY FOR THAT. 
          SO, UM, YOU MAY NOT HAVE THIS NUMBER, BUT I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW WHAT THE ANNUAL COST IS FOR THIS. 
          UM, 1% 13TH CHECK, IS IT A MILLION DOLLARS TO PAY THEM THE 
          [01:35:01]
1% EACH, YOU KNOW, DECEMBER OR IS IT, UM, $5 MILLION? DO YOU HAVE I HAVE IT IN ALL THESE PAPERS, BUT I'M GONNA SEND IT TO YOU. 
          YEAH, THAT'S OKAY. 
          YOU JUST SEND IT TO ME. 
          I I DIDN'T EXPECT YOU TO, TO HAVE THAT RIGHT OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD. 
          AND, AND IT, IT, IT'S NOT JUST ONE NUMBER, IT'S A NUMBER, A DIFFERENT NUMBER EVERY YEAR FOR 30 YEARS. 
          SURE, SURE. 
          SO JUST THE WAY IT GETS ADVERTISED OVER THAT TIME. 
          YES. 
          MAYBE IF WE COULD LOOK AT THE NUMBERS FOR THE FIRST FIVE YEARS, THREE TO FIVE, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. 
          JUST IN THE NEAR TERM. 
          I'M, I'M GONNA GIVE YOU THE WHOLE THING. 
          YOU'RE THE, THE WHOLE WHOLE THING BECAUSE THE NEAR TERM IT'S CHEAPER. 
          YOU, YOU NEED TO THINK ABOUT THE FOUR 30 YEARS, BUT WE'LL HAVE SO MUCH MONEY IN THE FUTURE. 
          NO, I'M JUST TEASING. 
          UM, I KNOW WE'RE CUTTING. 
          I KNOW. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, SO WE'LL GET THAT NUMBER AND LOOK AT THAT. 
          UM, I'M LISTENING TO, UM, UH, MY COLLEAGUES HAVE ISSUES WITH A NUMBER OF THE OTHER ALTERNATIVE FUNDING SOURCES. 
          UM, I PARTICULARLY LIKE THE ARPA. 
          UM, I KNOW IT'S A ONE-TIME SOURCE, BUT I'D LIKE US TO FIND THAT AND USE IT VERY WISELY, JUST REALLY WISELY, WHETHER IT'S TO PAY DOWN THE, THE, THE BIG AMOUNT THAN WE OWE OR IF IT'S TO, UM, POTENTIALLY SWEETEN THE DEAL AND INCREASE FOR, UM, FOR OUR, UH, RETIREES TO GIVE THEM MORE THAN JUST A 1% PER YEAR. 
          IF WE COULD DO THAT. 
          I, I THINK THAT'S JUST A REALLY SMALL NUMBER. 
          AND UM, AND IT'S, IT'S, WE NEED, WE NEED TO LOOK AT HOW WE CAN INCREASE THAT. 
          SO I WOULD, THAT'S ONE REASON I WOULD LOOK AT ARPA. 
          BUT THEN, UM, I'M INTERESTED IN THE PENSION OBLIGATION BONDS. 
          UM, I BELIEVE WE'VE BEEN ADVISED THAT THAT'S NOT, UM, IT'S NOT, WE HAVE NOT BEEN ADVISED TO USE THOSE BONDS IN THIS MARKET. 
          IS THAT STILL THE CASE? YES MA'AM. 
          THAT'S STILL THE CASE. 
          UM, HILLTOP SECURITIES IS OUR FINANCIAL ADVISOR AND I'VE HAD RECENT CONVERSATIONS WITH THEM, UH, AND ASKED THEM TO PROVIDE US WITH WHAT THAT TRIGGER IS, WHAT THAT INTEREST RATE IS THAT WE NEED TO BE LOOKING FOR. 
          AND MY UNDERSTANDING FROM HILLTOP IS THERE'S OTHER SYSTEMS AROUND THE COUNTRY THAT HAVE DONE SIMILAR THINGS AS FAR AS BEING SET UP FOR, UH, PENSION OBLIGATION BONDS WHEN THE MARKET IS RIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WE WILL MAYBE, REGARDLESS OF WHAT ELSE, WHAT HAPPENS IN OUR PLAN AND WHAT DECISIONS WE MAKE THIS YEAR, WE WILL ALWAYS KEEP THAT OUT THERE AS AN OPTION WHEN THE, WHEN WE THE INTEREST RATE HITS THE RIGHT NUMBER. 
          Y YES. 
          I I I THINK IT'S, I THINK IT'S A REAL OPTION. 
          I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S THE RIGHT OPTION TODAY. 
          YES. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT'S FOR, FOR THAT LONG TERM OBLIGATION TO BE ABLE TO PAY THAT DOWN MORE QUICKLY. 
          OF COURSE THEN YOU'RE TRADING UP FOR ANOTHER OBLIGATION. 
          BUT WE'RE, WE HAVE A PLAN FOR THAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I WAS GONNA SAY THAT, BUT I APPRECIATE YOU SAYING YES, YOU THEN OWE THE DEBT ON THE BONDS THAT YOU ISSUED. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND YOU, THE BENEFIT OF THAT IS, AND WE'RE DOUBLE CHECKING THIS WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, BUT UH, BEING ABLE TO PAY THAT OUT OF THE DEBT SERVICE SIDE OF THE TAX RATE OF THE BUDGET OF THE STILL PROPERTY TAX, BUT IT'S PAYING IT OUT OF THAT, IT COMES OUT OF A DIFFERENT POT. 
          YES. 
          SO TO SPEAK. 
          NOT ABOUT OUT OF OUR, UM, GEN GENERAL FUND. 
          YOU'RE RIGHT. 
          GENERAL FUND. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY, MS. STEWART, WE'LL GIVE YOU ONE MORE, I'LL GIVE YOU ONE MORE. 
          SHOOT, GO AHEAD. 
          UM, NO, I'LL, I'LL, I'LL SEE THE REST OF MY QUESTIONS IN TIME AT THIS POINT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SO ONE MORE QUESTION, MS. MEN. 
          OKAY. 
          SO TWO MORE, ONE MORE QUESTION . 
          UM, BUT I REALLY HAVE TWO. 
          OKAY. 
          JUST ONE. 
          UM, I'M TRYING TO DECIDE WHICH ONE TO ASK YOU. 
          UM, SO CHIRON HAS MADE RECOMMENDATIONS TO YOU AND THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDE GOING WITH AN ADEC, BUT YOU'RE RECOMMENDING THE LEAST PREFERRED OF THE FIVE THAT THEY SAY WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE. 
          THEY'VE RECOMMENDED INCREASE, DECREASING THE EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION. 
          YOU'RE SAYING PLEASE DON'T DO THAT. 
          THAT'S NOT YOUR RECOMMENDATION. 
          AND THEY'VE RECOMMENDED COLA OPTIONS AND YOU'RE RECOMMENDING SOMETHING OUTSIDE OF THAT. 
          AND SO I GUESS I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, WHILE YOU'RE PROVIDING US SOMETHING THAT MEETS THE LEGAL REQUIREMENT, HOW DO YOU FEEL THIS IS MEETING THE ACTUAL NEEDS THAT AN INDEPENDENT FIRM HAS DETERMINED ARE IMPORTANT FOR THE STABILITY OF THE FUND? MEANING IF PEOPLE ARE LEAVING BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT GETTING A BENEFIT THAT'S COMPETITIVE, WE'RE NOT ABLE TO RECRUIT, RETAIN, WE'RE NOT DOING THAT SORT OF WORK. 
          ALL OF THE ASSUMPTIONS ARE WRONG AND ALL THESE NUMBERS DON'T MEAN ANYTHING. 
          AND EVEN WITH THIS, THIS IS HOW I'M GETTING MY SECOND THING IN HERE. 
          NO, YOU'RE NOT EVEN WITH THIS, YOU'RE NOT. 
          NO, YOU'RE NOT. 
          IT'S, NO, YOU'RE PROVIDING DELOITTE VERY DIFFERENT NUMBERS I GUESS, THAN 
          [01:40:01]
THAN OTHERS. 
          'CAUSE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A GOVERNANCE ISSUE WHEN ACTUARIAL NUMBERS ARE MORE THAN 2% APART. 
          AND SO IT'S GOTTA BE THESE ASSUMPTIONS THAT ARE NOT THE SAME. 
          IS THAT RIGHT? O OKAY, SO THAT'S, IT'S A QUESTION. 
          SO JACK, I I'LL ANSWER THAT. 
          YOU GOT ALL THE YEAH, OKAY, GO AHEAD. 
          SO IF, IF, IF THAT IS PART OF THE GOVERNANCE, WE WILL BE USING THE SAME VARIABLES, RIGHT? UM, IF THE DISCOUNT RATE, IF THE AGREED UPON DISCOUNT RATE, WHICH THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE SUGGEST FOR GOVERNANCE IS THOSE TYPE OF THINGS BE APPROVED BY THE CITY. 
          AND SO I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT WE DO CALCULATIONS OR DELOITTE DO CALCULATIONS WITH A DISCOUNT RATE OF SEVEN AND A QUARTER AND, UM, D PFPS USING SIX AND A HALF OR WHATEVER. 
          THAT'S, NO, THAT'S, THAT'LL NEVER COME OUT THE SAME. 
          BUT USING SIMILAR, UM, OR USING THE SAME SIGNIFICANT VARIABLES IN BOTH, BUT DIFFERENT ACTUARIES, APPROACH IT DIFFERENTLY. 
          AND IF THERE'S MORE THAN A 2 CENT VARIANCE, WE WOULD WANNA FIGURE THAT OUT AND UNDERSTAND WHY. 
          BECAUSE IF EVERYBODY'S USING THE SAME ASSUMPTIONS, YOU SHOULD BE PRETTY CLOSE. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION, BUT IT'S MY INTENT TO, TO, TO NOT BE USING SOME ACTUARIAL ASSUMPTION THAT HADN'T BEEN AGREED TO. 
          UH, COUNCILWOMAN WILLIS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SO GOING TO PAGE 23 ON YOUR STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          SO I'VE READ BACK IN ONE OF THESE PAGES ABOUT COLA AS AUTOMATIC AND COLA AS AD HOC. 
          AND SO MY QUESTION IS ABOUT, I'M, I'M JUST HAVING TROUBLE FOLLOWING THAT ON THIS. 
          ARE WE TALKING ABOUT COLA BEING AN AD HOC? OUR RECOMMENDATION IS ONCE, UM, THE FUND IS AT 70% FUNDED, UH, AT, AND WE USE 1.5% NOW, AND IF WE CAN GET UP TO 3% LATER BASED ON CPI THAT THEY WOULD BE AD HOC COLAS THAT WE REQUIRE APPROVAL. 
          OKAY. 
          SO IT WOULD BE THAT, OR PERHAPS YOU COULD DO AD HOC UNTIL STABILITY'S ACHIEVED OR WE COULD JUST KEEP IT AD HOC. 
          I JUST WANNA BE SURE THAT IF THE, UH, STABILITY IS THREATENED IN ANY WAY THAT THERE'S A PROVISION THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO, TO MODIFY IF NECESSARY AGAIN, FOR THE HEALTH OF THE FUND AND OUR OWN BUDGET. 
          Y YES, ABSOLUTELY. 
          THAT'S, WE, WE THINK THAT IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT FOR THOSE TO CONTINUE TO BE AD HOC IF WE WANTED TO PUT SOME TYPE OF CRITERIA IN. 
          AND WHEN IT'S AD HOC VERSUS AUTOMATIC, THAT'S, THAT'S APPROPRIATE. 
          OKAY. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          OKAY, JACK, YOU KNOW, IF YOU GO TO PAGE OF 24, THE NEXT STEP, UM, I'M GOING TO MAKE A SUGGESTION. 
          UM, I AM MISSING TWO OF MY PENSION BOARD MEMBERS WHO'S NOT HERE TODAY AND I PREFER EVERYONE HERE TO MAKE A DECISION THAT, THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING TOGETHER ON. 
          SO COLLEAGUES, I WANT EVERYONE HERE STARTING TODAY, EVERY QUESTION THAT YOU WANT TO ASK ON, GIVE YOU TO MONDAY AT FIVE O'CLOCK TO PUT IN WRITING TO SEND IT TO THE CITY MANAGER AND JACK ALLEN AND CC ME EVERY QUESTION THAT YOU WANT TO ASK. 
          PLEASE PUT IN A WRITING BEFORE FIVE O'CLOCK ON MONDAY AND OUR PROBABLE CALL, ANOTHER SPECIAL CALL MEETING. 
          'CAUSE IT'S VERY IMPORTANT WE, BECAUSE I HEAR A WHOLE LOT OF DISCRETION, I HEAR A LOT OF QUESTION WAS ASKED A GOOD QUESTION. 
          WE DID NOT GET ALL THE CORRECT ANSWERS. 
          UH, THERE WAS A QUESTION I ASKED, UH, EARLY, UH, DURING THIS, UH, BEFORE I SET THE AGENDA UP, I DID NOT GET THE CORRECT ANSWER. 
          SO I KNOW JACK, UH, WE WENT OVER THIS, I KNOW JACK BEEN MEETING WITH KELLY EVERY MORNING AT EIGHT O'CLOCK AND KELLY, THANK YOU FOR MEETING WITH JACK ALLEN EVERY MORNING, EIGHT O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING EVERY DAY. 
          SO I HOPE WE CONTINUE THAT SCHEDULE TO MEET AT EIGHT O'CLOCK EVERY MORNING TO TALK. 
          AND SO IT COMES WITH SOME KIND OF CONSENSUS TOGETHER BECAUSE THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT. 
          I WANNA GET IT RIGHT. 
          I DON'T WANNA KICK A CAN DOWN THE ROAD, YOU KNOW, WE DEFINITELY WANNA GET IT RIGHT, BUT WE ALSO GOT AN OBLIGATION TO OUR TAXPAYERS AND WE AS POLICY MAKERS, WE NEED TO MAKE A SOUND DECISION BASED ON SOUND INFORMATION. 
          AND THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO, MAKE A BASE DECISION ON SOUND INFORMATION THAT EVERYONE HAS A QUESTION. 
          SO THEREFORE I SEE HANDS GONNA POP UP ALREADY. 
          SO I'M GONNA GIVE EVERYBODY A GOOD ONE MINUTE OKAY. 
          TO ASK YOU A QUESTION AND I'M GONNA COME BACK AND CLOSE IT OUT. 
          SO WITH THAT COUNCILWOMAN BLACKMAN, UH, MR. ATKINS, BECAUSE MONDAY'S A HOLIDAY, CAN WE PUSH IT TO NOON ON TUESDAY? YES MA'AM. 
          YOU'RE DOING NOON ON TUESDAY. 
          JUST MAKING SURE THAT, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT JACK THAT SAID FIVE O'CLOCK ON TUESDAY. 
          OKAY, PERFECT. 
          THANK FIVE O'CLOCK ON TUESDAY. 
          NOW CHAIRMAN WOMAN MENISON YOUR QUESTION. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, CAN WE ASK STAFF NOT TO AGGREGATE 
          [01:45:01]
OUR QUESTIONS? SO SOMETIMES A QUESTION IS ASKED VERY SPECIFICALLY WITH EITHER A BINARY ANSWER OR A VERY SPECIFIC THING AND IT GETS LUMPED TOGETHER AND THE ANSWER DOESN'T ACTUALLY ADDRESS ONE OF THE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. 
          OKAY? AND I WOULD ASK COUNCILWOMAN DO, AND I DO THE SAME THING 'CAUSE WE DO THE SAME THING. 
          WE ASK FIVE DIFFERENT QUESTIONS AND TO GET ONE ANSWER. 
          SO IF WE DO THE SAME, A DIRECT QUESTION AND A DIRECT ANSWER. 
          SO AS A DIRECT QUESTION, DIRECT ANSWER, YOU KNOW, IF WE DO THAT, IT COULD BE VERY EASY TO RESOLVE THIS ISSUE. 
          UH, AGAIN, SO IF WE SPEND THE TIME PUTTING THESE QUESTIONS TOGETHER, WHICH YOU KNOW, IT WILL TAKE SOME THOUGHT TO DO, RIGHT? CAN WE COUNT ON GETTING OUR EXACT ANSWER? AN EXACT ANSWER TO OUR EXACT QUESTION? PUT THIS WAY. 
          WE HAD A CITY MANAGER HERE AND THE CITY MANAGER WORKED FOR US. 
          SO I ASK INSTRUCTION, THE CITY MANAGER, WHEN THE POLICY MAKER GIVE YOUR STAFF QUESTION, WILL THEY ANSWER DIRECTLY BACK TO US? SO LET THE CITY MANAGER ASKED THAT WE CAN ASK JACK, WE ASK THE MANAGER. 
          YES. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          SO YOU GOT JAN, THANK YOU. 
          OKAY, WITH THAT RETIREES ACTING EMPLOYEES IN UNIFORM, WE ARE TRYING TO WORK TOGETHER. 
          IT'S NOT EASY. 
          YOU KNOW, WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO DO THIS FOR EVER SINCE 2017. 
          WE ARE WORKING TOGETHER TO TRY TO BE ONE CITY AND WE GONNA GET TO THE FINISH LINE. 
          WE DIDN'T GET IT TODAY. 
          WE ARE NOT GONNA HAVE A BIG RECOMMENDATION, BUT WE ARE GETTING CLOSE TO THE FINISH LINE. 
          I'M TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE UNDERSTAND. 
          AGAIN, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTION, YOU CAN CALL US AND WRITE AN EMAIL US FOR YOUR QUESTION. 
          SO WE TRY TO ADDRESS YOUR ANSWER ALSO. 
          SO WITH THAT, IT IS NOW 4 54 AND BEFORE I DO THAT, I WANT TO THANK EVERYONE FOR BEING HERE TODAY, ESPECIALLY MY COLLEAGUES FOR THEIR INSIGHT AND HAVE A GOOD HOLIDAY ON MONDAY AND THE STAFF OF THEIR HARD WORK AND DEDICATION. 
          AND LET'S MOVE FORWARD AND WE CAN BRING THIS FULL CITY COUNCIL. 
          IT MIGHT NOT BE ON JUNE 6TH, IT MIGHT BE ESPECIALLY TODAY, I AIN'T GOING TO SAY WHAT DAY MATTER CITY MANAGER, BUT WE GONNA LEAVE THAT OPEN UNTIL FIVE O'CLOCK ON TUESDAY. 
          WITH THAT IS 4 55. 
          THE AD HOC COMMITTEE IS NOW ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.