►
From YouTube: 5/16/23 - Dearborn Heights Study Session
Description
The Dearborn Heights Study Session for the Actuary Reports taking place Tuesday, May 16th 2023 in the Dearborn Heights Council Chambers and via Zoom.
A
A
C
A
A
D
D
Before
before,
I
begin,
I
thought
I'd
give
you
just
a
very
high
level
explanation
of
what
we
do
when
we
do
an
actuatorial
evaluation.
First
of
all,
we
collect
information
from
the
city.
We
collect
information
about
people,
that
is
your
active
membership,
your
retirees
and
your
drop
members.
We
collect
financial
information.
That
is
the
transactions
that
happen
during
the
year,
as
well
as
the
market
value
at
the
end
of
the
year.
D
We
then
set
up
a
mathematical
model
where
we
then
combine
the
benefit
provisions
and
the
valuation
assumptions
and
methods
that
the
board
adopted.
We
put
that
in
a
mathematical
model,
and
we
run
each
person
through
that
model
to
calculate
the
liability
for
that
person,
as
well
as
a
cost
for
your
active
membership.
D
We
then
set
up
a
second
model.
We
call
that
a
financing
model
where
we
aggregate
all
those
liabilities
and
those
costs,
and
then
we
take
the
financial
information
that
we
receive
and
we
subtract
it
from
your
liabilities
to
see
whether
the
system
is
overfunded,
meaning
you've
got
more
money
available
than
liabilities
or
whether
the
system
is
underfunded,
meaning
that
you
have
more
liabilities
than
than
assets.
D
We
then
calculate
the
employer
contribution
requirement,
we
calculate
the
funded
ratio
and
then
we
also
put
together
this
report
I'm
mainly
going
to
talk
to
you
about
section
A.
The
valuation
results
in
this
report.
Section
B,
is
a
summary
of
the
data
that
we
received,
as
well
as
the
benefit
provisions.
D
Section
c
is
a
summary
of
the
assumptions
and
the
methods
that
we
use
to
do
this
valuation
section
D
is
some
financial
reporting,
information
and
then
section
e
is
some
risk
disclosure
measures
that
we've
got
to
put
in
our
valuation
reports.
If
you
have
any
questions
about
any
section,
please
feel
free
to
ask.
Stop
me
at
any
at
any
point:
okay,
if
we
turn
to
page
A1.
D
We
can
see
that
there
was
a
slight
decrease
in
your
active
membership,
but
pays
are
about
three
hundred
thousand
dollars
higher
than
what
was
the
prior
year.
There
are
two
components
to
your
employer
contribution
requirement.
The
first
component
is
what
we
call
the
normal
cost.
That
is,
the
cost
for
your
active
membership
to
earn
another
Year's
worth
of
service.
D
D
Your
employees
pay
a
portion
of
that
normal
cost,
I
believe
fire
members
pay,
seven
percent
police
patrol
pay,
five
percent
and
police
command
pay.
Three
percent
I
might
have
the
groups
slightly
mixed
up,
but
that's
the
the
rates
that
they
pay
is
three
five
and
seven.
The
weighted
average
is
the
five
and
a
half.
D
D
As
I
said
earlier,
you
are
underfunded
and
you
are
underfunded
by
about
41.6
million
dollars
that
41.6
million
dollars
does
not
have
to
be
paid
off
immediately.
You
can,
if
you
want,
but
it
does
not
have
to
be
paid,
that's
what
we
call
amortization.
We
amortize
it
over
a
period
of
15
years
and
it
calculates
to
a
payment
of
3.6
million
dollars.
D
A
D
It
depends
there
might
be
entities
that
close
their
Pension
funds
quite
a
while
ago
that
every
Tyrese
only
at
the
moment
and
they
might
have
pre-funded
it
and
made
sure
that
they
are
fully
funded
when
there's
only
the
retirees
left,
but
it
it's
across
the
board,
but
83
definitely
is
not
the
worst
that
I've
seen
this
year.
Welcome.
Thank
you.
G
D
G
D
D
D
The
the
1.9
is,
it's
called
the
normal
cost.
That's
the
cost
for
the
active
members
in
the
plan,
the
114,
Police
and
Fire
folks
to
earn
another
Year's
worth
of
benefits
and
by
I
I.
Believe
it's
Michigan
Constitution.
You
have
to
pay
at
least
the
normal
cost,
plus
interest
portion
on
your
unfunded
liability.
D
D
If
you
turn
the
page
to
page
A2
on
this
page,
we've
got
a
summary
of
your
liabilities,
your
assets
and
your
funded
rate
line
number
A4.
Your
accrued
liabilities
increased
from
243.1
to
245.6
for
an
increase
of
about
two
and
a
half
million
dollars
your
assets
and
we'll
we'll
talk
about
the
assets
on
the
next
page.
This
is
not
the
this
is
not
the
marketing
market
value.
A
D
Work
well,
that's
money
that
has
been
set
aside
and
that
that's
money,
that's
invested
by
Mr
Riga
and
his
team
for
the
pension
fund.
So
that's
the
money
that
and
like
I
said:
that's,
not
the
market
value
and
we'll
talk
about
the
calculation
of
the
203.9.
But
that's
the
money
that's
been
set
aside
to
pay
for
pensions
at
the
end
of
the
2022
year
2023
year,.
A
D
A
D
D
That
mainly
due
to
the
market
share,
and
if
you
look
at
page
A3
so
like
I
said
we
don't
take
the
market
value
and
offset
it
against
your
liabilities,
because
we
know
that
market
value
is
very
volatile.
Last
year
the
return
was
34
percent.
This
year
it
was
negative
17,
so
that
creates
up
and
down.
If
we
use
the
the
market
value
per
se,
your
contributions
one
year
would
go
up.
D
D
Well,
we
we
take
20
of
whatever
next
year's
gain.
Hopefully,
hopefully
this
again
will
be
so
that
calculates
to
10.18
million.
We
take
that
loss.
We
add
it
to
the
20
from
the
gains
that
we
had
the
prior
year,
the
9
million
and
sixty
four
thousand
and
then
the
prior
losses
for
the
second
and
third
year
and
the
prior
gain
for
the
fourth
year
to
come
up
with
a
loss
this
year
of
three
about
3.8
million.
D
A
So
the
concern
I've
gotten
in
so
looking
at
these
numbers
just
and
I'm
just
using
an
approximation.
You
know
I
see
a
potential
difference
here
of
almost
13
million,
because
we
had
a
gain
of
almost
nine
and
now
we
have
losses
of
almost
four
or
three
point:
eight,
why
such
a
huge
disparity
from
2022
to
2023?
Well,.
D
A
D
Clarifying
no
I
mean
if,
if
you
look
on
the
next
page,
page
A4
in
in
the
last
column,
the
estimated
market
rate
of
return
and
remember,
we
are
looking
for
seven
percent.
That
is
the
Actuarial
rate
of
return
that
the
board
set
in
2018.
It
was
9.2
percent,
so
there
we
they
did.
The
Investments
beat
your
assumption
in
2019
it
was
four
and
a
half
percent,
so
there
it
lost
in
2020.
It
was
negative
0.64
there
it
lost
again
in
2021
it
was
34.06.
H
D
A
What
I'm
trying
to
understand
is
so
you
have
been
two
thousand
I
mean
obviously
better
Investments
clearly,
but
now
I'm
just
wondering
out
loud
here.
Are
we
going
into
in
and
not
that
I
would
know
more
than
you
guys,
but
I'm
just
trying
to
clear
this
up
with
our
pensions
here
with
losses
of
3.8
million.
That
is
not
a
good
investment.
Obviously
clearly,
so
are
we
getting?
Are
we
going
into
bad
Investments,
because
last
year
you
had
8.86
in
games
in
millions,
and
now
we
have
losses
of
3.8
yeah.
D
D
A
B
B
We've
made
about
8.44,
compounded
over
that
35
Plus
year
period,
which
is
added
over
and
above
the
Actuarial
assumption,
approximately
75
million
dollars.
We
started
with
around
I
think
it
was
28
million
back
in
1986,
but
returns
are
choppy.
They
always
are
choppy
from
equities.
Historically
equities
have
given
you
about
10
percent
and
I,
don't
care.
B
B
Just
another
metric
to
show
you
how
we've
done
versus
other
systems
were
for
10
years
were
a
little
bit
better
than
Calpers
for
20
years
we
outperform
Calpers
and
for
30
years
we
outperform
Calpers.
Now
Calpers
is
the
California
state.
Public
Employee
Retirement
System,
which
is
the
biggest
Fund
in
the
world,
supposedly
has
500
financial
experts
working
for
them.
A
So
that
would
tell
me
just
based
on
those
raw
numbers.
Even
though
I
see
your
point
about
over
the
Long,
Haul
I
get
it.
But
if
we
have
projections
of
losses,
Arnold
either
we're
getting
into
two
we're
being
too
aggressive
in
our
investments,
taking
a
little
bit
more
risk
than
maybe
we
need
to
or
maybe
I
again,
maybe
not.
B
A
B
Talking
about
over
the
last
10
years-
oh
okay,
over
10
years-
and
that's
the
way
we
have
to
look
at
it.
If
you,
if
you
invest
your
funds
over
10
years
and
you
try
to
trade
in
and
out
and
go
to
treasury
bills
periodically
or
go
to
bonds
periodically,
if
you
just
miss
the
best
15
trading
days
in
the
market,
the
best
15
return
days,
your
return
drops
from
around
10
percent
to
about
seven
percent
and
I
can
bring
you
some
charts
that
that
show
I.
B
Don't
have
them
with
me
right
now,
but
I
can
bring
those
for
you.
You
just
have
to
be
patient
and
you
have
to
be
focused
on
the
long
term.
We
have
very
good,
very
high
quality
investment
managers
and
mutual
funds
and
exchange
traded
funds.
Some
of
what
we
do
is
active
management.
Some
of
it
is
indexes,
but
if
you
had
your
money
in
bonds,
we
would
have
just
gotten
further
and
further
and
further
behind
and
so
many
different
factors
which
Francois
can
address
affect
your
funding
levels.
B
B
F
H
F
B
D
B
D
D
But
we
are
not
using
that
50
million
loss
immediately.
We
we
smooth
in
20
percent
above
the
seven
percent
assumption
and
20
below
the
seven
zone.
Now
that
50
million
eventually
has
to
be
recognized,
but
the
way
that
we
do
it
and
the
way
that
the
Actuarial
profession
does
it
is
by
smoothing.
So
we
take
the
20
percent
Heat
this
year,
but
we've
got
to
take
a
20
eat
next
year,
the
Year
thereafter
and
all
the
way
to
20
27
when
it's
the
10.18.
D
D
F
D
G
G
You
know,
if
that's
the
case,
why
don't
we
just
do
the
opposite,
then
make
money
on
it,
but,
and
is
there
a
plan
in
place
to
the
better
of
these?
Do
you
have
some
kind
of
a
plan
to
maybe
we
won't
take
losses
or
you're
just
going
to
stay,
stay
stay
the
course
and
take
these
losses,
take
it
on
the
chin
and
hope
for
some
better
times
ahead.
D
Well,
the
the
assumed
rate
of
return
is,
is
seven
percent,
that's
the
board's
assumption
and
it's
not
the
actuaries
assumption,
but
that's
the
board's
assumption.
The
board
can
always
lower
their
assumption,
but
once
the
board
lowered
the
Assumption,
then
the
liability
amount
increases,
so
there's
a
very
fine
line.
But
if
the
board
decides
to
lower
its
assumption,
then
the
bogey
for
Mr
Riga
is
is
less.
D
He
can
then
invest
in
safer
assets,
not
that
he's
investing
in
Risky
assets
at
the
moment,
in
any
case,
but
last
year
whether
you
invested
in
safe
assets
or
not,
the
market
took
a
knock
like
Mr
Riga
said,
even
if
you
put
money
in
bonds,
you
would
not
have
achieved
your
rate
of
return.
If
your
rate
of
return
was
one
percent,
then
maybe,
but
there
is
not
a
rate
of
return,
not
even
for
private
plans
where
we
use
where
one
percent
rate
of
return
is
used
as
a
discount
rate.
You.
G
D
No,
it's
it's
it's!
What
already
happened
that
50.9
million
we
didn't
recognize
50.9
million
this
year,
the
45
million
that
happened
last
year.
It's
not
the
45
million
that
we
recognize.
Then
we
only
recognize
9
million.
That
9
million
is
done
in
2026.,
but
the
the
last
20
percent
of
the
15.9
million
is
only
done
in
2027.
So
that's.
Why
there's
a
big
big
difference
between
the
two
numbers?
Okay,
So!
When.
H
I
F
A
I
I
You
can't
put
your
money
in
U.S
treasuries,
because
once
interest
rate
goes
up,
those
bonds
go
down
so
so
there
is
no
Safe
Haven,
but
you
have
to
stay
invested
because
over
the
long
term
we
need
to
achieve
the
seven
percent
and
we've
more
than
done
that
we've
been
achieving
eight
percent
over
the
long
term.
So
so
we
have
been
doing
our
job.
Is
this
year
a
good
year?
No
this
year,
wasn't
it.
A
A
But
the
concern
is
see
that
that
seven
percent
is
skewed
drastically
by
the
35
or
34.
Some
percent
are
received
at
one
at
one
time.
So
if
you
take
that
you're
going
to
think
typically
like
the
median,
so
when
you
take
out
the
extremes,
we're
not
the
seven
percent,
you
know
what
I'm
talking
if
you
take
out
the
34
or
eight
percent.
Okay,
if
you
take
out
the
extremes,
we're
not
a
good
place.
A
A
B
Difference
between
seven
and
about
8.44,
which
is
where
we
are
right
now,
net
of
all
fees.
Now
a
lot
of
systems
don't
report
net
of
all
fees.
We
capture
all
that
data,
actuary
investment
consultant
custodian,
all
of
those
legal
fees
get
captured
because
those
they
show
up
on
the
bank
custodian
statements,
so
we
capture
those,
and
so
we
net
it
all
out
everything
investment
manager,
fees,
but
over
very
long
periods
of
time.
B
C
B
That
was
terrible,
but
we
stayed
the
course
we
were
patient.
We
didn't
do
anything
silly
like
selling
our
stocks
and
moving
into
bonds,
because
you
just
never
know
when
it's
going
to
change
and
it's
going
to
turn
around
like
it
did
in
2009,
and
we
had
10
very
good
years.
So
patience
is
just
key
to
this.
Okay.
B
E
H
B
A
very
hazardous
occupation
to
predict
the
future,
but
I'll
do
that
for
a
second
here.
So
in
the
past,
when
the
FED
has
broken
the
back
of
inflation,
and
let
me
just
back
up
for
one
second,
so
right
now
this
year
for
the
plan
year,
the
fiscal
year
as
of
the
end
of
April,
we're
up
a
little
bit
over
seven
percent.
B
The
market
Equity
markets
went
on
long-term
bull
markets
in
the
50s
and
60s
and
then
again
in
the
80s
and
90s,
and
the
returns
were
double-digit
and
I'm
talking
12
13
14
from
equities.
Now
the
FED
right
now
and
it's
painful
to
get
there
but
they've
been
raising
rates.
They
raised
rates
the
fastest
that
they
ever
have
in
history.
B
I'm,
actually
surprised
that
this
year
the
market
has
held
up
as
well
as
it
has
with
the
rate
hikes,
but
the.
But
the
market
is
sensing
that
those
are
coming
to
an
end
and
when
they
do
and
inflation
is
already
rolled
over,
the
CPI
peaked
last
June
at
9.1
percent
we're
down
down
to
4.9
on
a
year-over-year
basis.
So
it's
happening
it's
working,
it's
not
easy
as
you
go
through
it,
but
it
tends
to
lead
to
very
good
long-term
periods.
B
I'm,
not
suggesting
we're
going
to
get
to
mid-teens
type
of
returns,
but
they
are
certainly
going
to
be
better,
so
I
I
think
the
future
is
bright.
Now
we
could
have
a
correction
at
some
point
any
point
in
time
this
summer.
That
would
be
very
typical:
five
to
ten
percent
Corrections
and
Equity
prices.
They
happen
on
average
virtually
every
year,
but
I
think
as
we
look
forward
to
the
fourth
quarter
of
this
year
and
looking
forward
into
2024
and
25.,
the
economy
is
going
to
recover.
B
D
Okay,
I'm
going
to
conclude
on
page
11
on
common
two,
so
we
add
the
negative
17.1
percent
rate
of
return
on
the
market,
and
so
we
do
the
smoothing
and
we
calculate
the
funding
value.
And
then
we
offset
against
the
assets,
offset
against
your
liabilities
and
calculate
your
contribution
requirement
and
that
left
us
with
a
contribution
requirement
of
5.8581
million.
D
I
I
I
mean
to
you
know
two
and
a
half
million
2.4
million,
but
we've
had
years
where
the
liability
was
going
up,
11
million
dollars,
10
million.
That's
how
you
get
a
lot
of
that
from
your
on
to
your
unfunding
status.
It's
not
necessarily
because
of
the
results
of
the
assets,
but
the
liabilities
of
the
system
have
drastically
gone
up.
Oh
I'm,
sorry,
so
France!
So.
D
D
But
your
active
membership
increased
from
109
to
119.
I.
Don't
have
the
number
in
front
of
me
about
how
many
people
retired
or
entered
the
drop,
but
your
population
is
bigger,
as
your
population
gets
bigger.
Your
liabilities
get
bigger
your
retiree
numbers.
You
are
not
a
mature
plan
yet
meaning
that
there
are
not
more
members
that
pass
away
than
members
that
are
added
to
your
retiree
roles,
and
that's
also
one
of
the
reasons
why
liabilities
increase
you.
D
They
do
not
accrue
any
more
benefits.
So
if
you
work
another
year,
it's
not
like
you're
going
to
get
a
higher
pay
towards
your
pension
or
more
service
towards
your
pension.
Your
pension
benefit
is
essentially
Frozen
that
money
gets
paid
into
an
account
and
then,
when
you
finally
retire
from
the
system
and
you're,
not
working
with
this
city
anymore,
that
money
is
paid
and
then
you
will
resume
you'll
start
collecting
your
monthly
benefit.
So.
D
It
can
be
a
benefit
it.
It
can
be
a
negative
most
cities,
you,
you
still
have
those
people
employed
with
you.
That
means
you
don't
have
to
go
and
get
people
brand
new
out
of
college
or
from
different
employers
where
they
still
have
to
learn.
What
to
do.
These
people
know
what
to
do.
They
just
work
for
you
for
a
longer
period
of
time.
The
benefits
don't
don't
accrue
anymore,
they
don't
increase
that
benefits
is
just
paid
into
an
and
a
drop
account
for
them.
Okay,.
I
The
drop
on
the
drop
situation
is
again,
it's
not
something
that
we
can
control
at
the
board
level.
That's
a
negotiating
benefit
throughout
contracts,
which
then
we
just
administrate
yeah
right
and
and
that's
what
I'm
saying
in
the
earlier
years.
A
lot
of
these
liabilities
were
when
benefits,
increases
and
individuals
towards
the
end
of
their
careers.
It
gets
recognized
sooner
and
so
that's
what
was
happening
in
some
of
these
years
when
we
went
from
underfunding
status
to
over
fund
instead
to
underfunding
Stats
and
that
started
that
kind
of
situation.
F
I
F
It's
just
like
you
know
in,
for
instance,
Josh
makatelli
works
at
ABC
and
he
has
a
401k
and
the
company
is
managing
it
and
then
he
retires
leaves
the
company
they
give
him
x
amount
of
you
know
a
month
or
60
days
to
take
that
money.
Out
of
that,
and
you
know
move
it
to
wherever
we
want
without
a
penalty
yeah
and
that
benefits.
Obviously
the
company
would
that
benefit
the
city.
D
It
it
it
would
benefit
the
city
if
the
city
does
not
make
more
than
five
percent
okay,
because
that's
basically
the
interest
that
you
pay
on
the
drop
account.
Okay
and
that's
that's
if
you
earn
less
than
that
yeah,
it
would
benefit
if
you
earn
more
than
that.
That
interest
accrues
to
the
to
the
retirement
system
and
some
of
it
is
paid
on
onto
the
members.
D
G
F
F
E
J
J
Okay,
so
on
page
five
we
showed
the
summary
report.
This
is
our
bottom
line
on
top
we'll
notice
the
numbers
throughout
the
report.
Here,
the
numbers
on
the
right
most
side
will
be
last
year's
numbers
for
reference,
and
then
the
numbers
in
the
leftmost
column
of
numbers
will
be
this
year's
numbers.
So
you
could
see
the
year-over-year
changes.
J
So
if
we
look
at
last
year
versus
this
year
on
the
total
recommended
contribution
to
the
fund,
which
is
ultimately
the
calculation
that
we
that
we're
here
to
perform,
there
was
about
an
8.6
percent
increase
year
over
year,
which
was
higher
than
normal
years,
but
again
that
a
lot
of
that
has
to
do
with
the
market
and
I'll
show
you
some
breakdowns
in
the
report
of
what
that
looks
like,
as
we
flip
through
this
in
more
detail.
So
there's
a
couple
of
factors
that
contributed
to
that
increase.
J
First
of
all,
the
methodology
that's
employed
here
does
use
a
payroll
growth
assumption.
So,
basically,
the
amortization
on
your
unfunded
liability,
which
also
does
exist
in
this
fund
and
we'll
show
you
that
in
a
couple
Pages,
you
amortize
that
using
this
payroll
growth
concept,
which
means
that
you're
counting
on
your
amortization
payment
to
move
move
with
payroll
so
as
the
department
payroll
grows,
so
will
your
amortization
payment
at
this
point?
J
That
assumption
is
3.5
percent
and
so
every
year,
if
all
of
our
actual
assumptions
come
true,
I'm
going
to
come
to
you
with
a
contribution
a
little
bit
higher
than
last
year,
just
by
the
nature
of
that
methodology.
Okay,
that's
part
of
the
methodology
that
we
use
for
this
calculation.
In
addition,
the
plan
did
experience
some
unfavorable
experience
this
year
with
we
talked
extensively
already
about
the
market
that
happened
in
this
fund.
Just
like
it
happened
all
the
funds
across
the
country
last
year.
J
J
Today,
we're
trying
to
predict
what
their
salary
is
going
to
be
when
they
ultimately
retire,
and
we
do
that
through
the
use
of
this
assumption
every
year
we
do
measure
the
experience
relative
to
our
assumption,
and
this
happens
to
be
a
year
where
increases
were
higher
than
expected.
Some
years
you
have
the
opposite
happens,
so
that
volatility
is
typical
in
the
assumption.
But
again
everything
we're
doing
here
is
supposed
to
be
looked
at
through
the
lens
of
long
term,
and
so
that's
that's
really
what's
happening
here.
J
So
you
have
this
one
year,
salary
increase
that
was
higher
than
expected.
In
addition,
you
did
have
some
offsets
to
that.
You
had
higher
than
expected
inactive
mortality,
so
more
people
died
than
we
anticipated
through
our
mortality
rates,
so
that
brings
liability
down.
Obviously
you
don't
have
future
payments
to
those
folks
anymore,
and
then
you
did
have
a
little
bit
higher
turnover
than
anticipated,
which
was
an
offsetting
Factor
as
well.
So
we
turn
to
page
six
page.
J
Six
just
highlights
some
of
the
changes
year
over
year
and
this
year
was
an
actual
relatively
stable
year
when
it
came
to
assumptions
when
it
came
to
benefits.
But
I
do
want
to
highlight
that
you
will
have
one
assumption
or
plan
change
rolling
in
next
year.
So,
as
Francois
mentioned,
the
valuation
is
performed
as
of
6
30
2022,
using
data
as
of
that
date,
but
that's
rolled
forward
to
2023
so
when
that
2023
years
used-
and
we
have
data
collected
at
that
date,
this
is
this
plan.
Change
will
be
incorporated
next
year
into
your
report.
J
Okay,
so
I'm
addition
to
page
seven
now
get
into
some
of
the
detailed
calculations
here
so
again
that
leftmost
column
will
be
what
we'll
focus
on
for
the
discussion
we
have.
Three
sections
on
this
page
Section
8
is
a
is
the
participant
data.
This
is
the
data
that
we
collected
from
you
to
perform
the
valuation.
It's
snapshot
valuation
data
collected
as
of
6
30
2022,
so
whoever
was
in
the
fund,
whatever
their
status
was
on.
That
date
is
who
was
valued
for
the
purpose
of
this
valuation.
Section
B
shows
that
asset
information.
J
You
see
the
market
value
and
the
actual
value.
Similarly,
we
use
the
five-year
smoothing
where
we're
recognizing
only
20
percent
of
the
gains
and
or
losses
every
year
last
year
was
a
loss,
so
we're
only
recognizing
20
percent
of
that
we'll
continue
to
roll
in
20
percent
of
that
each
year.
That's
always
measured
relative
to
the
actual
Assumption
of
that
seven
percent,
so
losses
or
anything
above
seven
gains
or
any
or
losses
or
anything
below
seven
gains
or
anything
above.
J
Oh
I
see
okay,
thank
you
sure,
and
then
lastly,
section
c
is
where
we'll
start
to
dive
into
the
liabilities
pay
I'm
going
to
flip
you
quickly
to
page
35
of
that
report,
it'll
be
a
little
bit
easier
to
see
what
happened
with
the
valuation
data
over
that
time
period.
So
we
do
have
a
valuation
participant
reconciliation.
So
we
take
the
data
as
of
6,
30,
2022
and
and
look
at
what
we're
calc
using
as
of
630
2023,
which
is
really
a
year
lag
approach
that
we're
using
here.
J
So
you
can
see
that
the
the
prior
valuation
had
118
actives
we're
down
to
117
actives
one
less
than
last
year,
but
we
did
get
there
through
some
experience
you
had
more
terminations
than
than
expected,
as
I
mentioned.
Five
of
those
terminations
are
due
future
annuities.
These
are
those
terminated
vested
employees,
they
are
not
yet
receiving
their
annuity,
but
they
will
eventually
four
of
those
folks
took
a
lump
sum
of
their
money,
so
they
they
are
no
longer
do
anything
from
your
fund.
They
took
their
money
and
they're
done.
J
Then
you
had
four
folks
retire,
so
they
are
they
retired
and
are
in
annuitant
status.
Now
and
then
those
folks
were
replaced
by
12
new
hires.
So
you,
you
brought
those
on
to
to
replace
the
majority
of
the
losses
that
you
had
through
Exodus.
If
we
look
at
the
bottom
of
that
page,
there
you
see
the
reconciliation
of
the
inactive,
so
this
is
where
you
can
see
that
higher
mortality
rate.
J
So
if
we
look
at
the
the
First
Column
there,
we
have
retirees
of
132
at
the
last
valuation,
we're
down
to
130
at
this
valuation
due
to
eight
deaths
in
that
population,
replaced
by
six
retirements
four
from
the
actives
two
of
those
terminated
vesteds
that
we
talked
about
were
they
hit
the
age
where
they're
eligible
to
start
their
annuity,
so
they
moved
over
to
this
category
now.
So
you
could
see
some
of
the
movement
there
and
then
the
other
place.
We
saw
a
lot
of
that
inactive
mortality
was
in
the
beneficiary.
J
That's
the
second
column
there
at
the
bottom,
so
you
went
from
25
beneficiaries
down
to
20.
beneficiaries
are
simply
the
spouses
of
the
former
retirees
that
that
are
now
receiving
benefits
on
behalf
of
their
eligible
spouse.
Okay,
I'm,
going
to
turn
you
back
to
page
seven
section.
B
shows
you
the
assets
and
I'm
not
going
to
get
into
the
detail
of
the
smoothing.
It's
the
same,
smoothing
method
that
that
they're,
using
on
the
police
and
fire
fund.
J
But
what's
important
to
note
here,
is:
if
you
look
at
last
year's
valuation,
you
can
see
that
the
actual
value
of
Market
actual
value
was
42.7.
Million
versus
the
market
last
year
was
47.1
Million,
so
you
actually
had
deferred
gains
last
year,
so
that
was
prior
to
reflecting
the
market
losses
as
of
6
30
20
22..
So
the
actual
value
is
actually
about
91
of
market
value.
J
That
situation
has
reversed
this
year,
just
due
to
that
one
year
of
Market
return,
and
so
this
year
you
actually
have
those
deferred
losses
that
you'll
be
reflecting
in
future
valuations,
and
so
the
relationship
of
the
actual
value
in
the
market
value
is
reversed
and
the
actual
value
is
about
11
12
higher
than
the
market
value.
So
that's
typical
and
that
just
tells
us
the
smoothing
methods
doing
exactly
what
it
should
be
doing.
You're
reflecting
some
of
the
experience
over
the
year,
but
you're
not
reflecting
it
all
at
once.
J
That
will
mitigate
that
volatility
in
the
contribution
that
we
bring
to
you
each
year,
so
that
nine,
you
know
eight
and
a
half
percent
nine
percent
increase
that
we
came
to
you
with
would
have
been
much
higher.
Had
we
not
had
the
smoothing
method
going
on
okay,
the
last
section
here
is
the
liabilities.
So
in
the
liabilities,
the
very
first
calculation
we
perform
as
an
actuaries
the
present
value
of
benefits.
J
That
number
is
that
60.1
million
dollars
the
bottom
of
that
column
and
what
that
represents
is,
if
you
had
assets
of
60.1
million
dollars
today
in
the
fund,
you
would
be
fully
funded
on
the
321
people
that
we
valued
as
the
valuation
date.
This
is
not
a
number
you
would
fund
to,
because
some
of
these
benefits
have
not
yet
been
earned.
Your
actives
are
still
going
to
be
working
for
you
up
to
retirement,
and
this
number
reflects
that
concept.
So
it's
it's
including
service
that
we
expect
to
happen.
That
has
not
yet
happened.
J
So
on
page
eight,
we
actually
break
that
down,
and
here
you
can
see
near
the
bottom
of
that
leftmost
column,
total
actual
accrued
liability
of
55.7
million.
That
number
is
representative
of
benefits
that
have
already
been
earned
by
your
act.
Population
includes
all
your
inactive
liability,
and
that's
really
your
target
here.
This
is
what
you're
funding
to
We,
compare
that
55.7
million
to
the
actual
value
of
assets
that
smoothed
value,
where
we
help
mitigate
some
of
that
market
volatility,
and
we
get
an
unfunded
actual
accrued
liability
of
about
13
million
dollars
in
this
fund.
J
That's
reflective
of
service,
that's
already
been
earned,
but
not
yet
paid
for
so
effectively.
The
city
has
a
mortgage
of
13
million
dollars
towards
this
fund
for
benefits
that
have
already
been
earned
by
the
population
but
still
has
to
be
paid
down.
That
will
be
a
component
of
the
contribution
that
we
show
you
in
a
couple
pages
that
gives
you
a
funded
ratio
on
an
actually
smoothed
asset
basis
of
76.7
percent
that
did
decrease
slightly
from
last
year.
We
expected
that
with
the
markets,
most
funds
saw
decrease
year
over
year,
so
you're
not
unique.
J
In
that
sense,
the
last
number
I
want
to
point
out
on
this
page
is
the
total
normal
cost
number
near
the
middle
of
that
column
of
662
thousand
dollars,
and
that
is
representative
of
the
cost
of
your
active
population
earning
one
year
of
pension
accruals.
So
by
working
one
more
year.
If
all
else
you
know
all
all
came
true
with
our
actual
assumptions
and
you
were
fully
funded,
you
would
be
paying
about
six
hundred
and
sixty
two
thousand
dollars
per
year
just
to
maintain
the
cost
of
that
new
accrual.
J
However,
I'm
going
to
flipping
out
of
page
10
on
page
10
on
Section
e
here
we
actually
roll
all
of
that
information
together
into
the
contribution
calculation,
and
so
you
can
see
the
first
that
leftmost
column
here.
The
top
number
is
normal
cost.
We
have
applied
interest
here
because
our
numbers
previously
were
calculated
as
of
the
valuation
date.
We
know
they're
not
paid
on
that
date,
they're
paid
later
in
the
year,
so
we
do
apply
interest
to
those,
but
that
gives
you
the
normal
cost
of
seven
hundred
and
eight
thousand.
J
J
However,
there
is
a
large
number
in
the
middle
that
mortgage
I
mentioned
on
that
unfunded,
so
you
are
paying
that
down
over
19
years
and
that's
in
the
middle
of
the
page
there
that
969
000
number
is
effectively
that
amortization
payment
that
mortgage
to
catch
up
to
become
fully
funded.
We
add
those
two
numbers
together
to
give
us
the
expected
City
contribution
of
one
million
six
hundred
and
seventy
seven
thousand
six.
Twenty
six
okay,
so
about
58
of
the
recommended
contribution
is
just
catching
up
and
trying
to
pay
down
that
unfunded.
J
So
in
19
years
the
good
news
is
that
goes
away.
Unfortunately,
the
bad
news
is
that's
19
years
out,
so
hopefully
assets
to
return
something
better
for
us
this
year
and
we
see
that
reverse
a
bit.
But
that's
where
we
are
right
now,
section
F
just
shows
you
how
the
fund,
how
the
plan
was
funded
relative
to
the
recommendation.
You
can
see
that
there
was
full
funding
last
year.
There's
no
shortfalls
to
worry
about
here,
so
I'm
going
to
flip
you
two
page
12
quickly,
just
in
the
interest
of
time.
J
So
if
we
look
at
page
12,
we
do
break
that
down
pension
cost
by
division
just
based
on
payroll.
So
this
is
a
allocation
simply
based
on
the
payroll
by
Department.
If
you
did
need
to
look
at
that
by
Department,
if
we
look
at
page
13,
this
shows
us
the
development
of
that
amortization
payment.
So
this
is
that
mortgage
payment
that
I
was
talking
about
and
I
mentioned,
this
payroll
growth
concept
of
3.5
percent
payroll
growth,
assumption
that's
being
applied,
so
the
very
bottom
right
hand.
J
Corner
of
that
page
shows
you
a
number
of
906
thousand
dollars.
That's
the
beginning
of
the
year
amortization
payment
calculation,
as
I
mentioned.
When
we
looked
at
that
in
section
e,
we
did
apply
interest
to
that
because
it's
paid
later
in
the
year,
but
using
that
3.5
payroll
growth,
Assumption
of
all
of
my
assumptions
come
true.
Next
year,
I'm
coming
back
to
you
with
the
number
3.5
percent
higher
than
906
next
year,
guaranteed
it's
just
the
methodology,
that's
employed
right
now.
J
One
thing
you
can
do
in
the
short
term:
it
does
cost
more,
but
one
thing
you
could
do
to
mitigate
the
growth
of
that
amortization.
Payment
is
to
decrease
that
payroll
growth
assumption.
So
that's
something
that
when
we
do
the
experience
study
in
a
couple
years,
we'll
probably
want
to
talk
about
whether
3.5
percent
is
the
right
place
to
be,
and
a
lot
of
that
just
depends
on.
You
know
budgeting
and
thinking
about
how?
How
much
can
the
city
afford
to
see
growth
in
this?
J
So,
let's
turn
to
page
15..
This
is
one
of
my
favorite
pages
in
the
report.
This
gives
us
the
reconciliation
of
the
changes
in
the
contribution
requirement
year
over
year,
so
item
one
at
the
top
shows
us
what
we
recommended
last
year.
Item
three
shows
us
what
we're
recommending
this
year,
and
this
shows
you
all
the
factors
that
contributed
to
that
increase
year
over
year.
So
if
we
look
at
the
Heavy
Hitters
here,
investment
return
now
this
is
on
the
smoothed
actual
basis
on
a
smooth
basis.
J
If
all
my
assumptions
come
true,
so
that's
just
the
methodology
that's
employed,
we
did
see
salary
increases
that
were
higher
than
expected,
so
salary
increases
for
this
population
last
year
were
north
of
10
percent.
We
expected
based
on
our
actual
assumptions,
3.96
percent,
so
that
cost
the
fund
about
28
000
dollars
the
prior
couple
years.
We
actually
saw
salary
increases
lower
than
expected,
so
it's
likely
contracts
that
get
timed
and
that
happens.
That
will
happen
over
a
long
term.
Is.
J
J
Some
some
of
them
had
spouses
some
did
not.
So
we
have
a
valuation
assumption
that
anticipates
some
people
having
spouses.
Sometimes
they
don't,
though-
or
you
know,
we
think
they
did
and
then
we
find
out
when
they
actually
are
deceased,
their
spouse,
pre-deceased
them,
and
at
that
point
in
time
we
release
more
liability
than
we
anticipated,
which
is
What's,
Happening,
Here,
okay,
so
that
shows
you
how
you
got
from
year
over
year,
if
I
turn
you
to
page
17
quickly
to
point
out,
this
is
a
projection
of
the
benefit
payments
we
anticipate
in
the
fund.
J
This
is
based
on
our
assumptions
to
date.
We
would
anticipate
your
benefits
to
grow
based
on
that
final
column
there
on
the
right
hand,
side
if
I
look
at
that:
3.8
million
3.9
million
dollar
number
on
the
2023
row
and
I
compare
that
to
your
market
value
of
assets.
It
is
about
10
of
the
market
value,
so
you
are
paying
about
10
percent
of
assets
out
each
year,
just
to
be
paying
out
on
benefits
that
was
lower
last
year,
obviously,
with
the
market
going
down
we're
seeing
a
bigger
percentage
of
that.
J
So
hopefully
we
see
that
reverse
in
the
future,
as
well.
Just
to
point
out
to
you
page,
18
and
19
do
show
you
a
summary
of
the
assumptions
that
we
use
to
perform
the
valuation.
The
last
study
was
done
in
2021.
Studies
are
required
to
be
done
on
a
five-year
cycle,
so
we
would
anticipate
in
a
couple
years
we'll
be
coming
back
to
you
with
new
assumptions.
Generally
speaking,
the
demographic
assumptions
aren't
too
volatile,
we'll
tweak
some
things
here
and
there,
but
that'll
be
coming
in
a
couple
of
years.
J
J
J
You
can
see
who
might
be
eligible
for
retirement
and
if
I
look
at
eligibility
for
retirement
anybody,
who's
65
with
five
or
more
years
of
service,
or
has
achieved
that
depending
on
the
category
they're
in
it,
could
be
as
low
as
50,
55
and
20.
25.
I'm,
sorry
that
you
have
somewhere
around
nine
to
ten
percent
of
the
folks
that
were
eligible
for
retirement-
that's
relatively
low,
so
in
terms
of
you
know
a
run
on
the
bank
or
any
extreme
increases
in
your
benefit
payments
in
the
future.
I.
J
J
Okay
and
then
the
last
page
I
want
to
point
out
is
Page
36.,
so
page
36
does
show
you
a
three-page
summary
of
the
plan
Provisions
that
we
did
value
for
the
fund.
This
does
not
replace
your
Municipal
Code,
but
it
is
a
much
quicker
reference
if
you
are
looking
for
what
the
benefits
are
for
folks,
this
three-page
summary
can
suffice
quite
well.
So
with
that,
are
there
any
questions
from
the
board.
D
G
G
I,
don't
know
I,
don't
know
if
you
can
answer
this
question
or
Francois
or
John
now,
when
they
take
a
large
lump
sum
payout,
it's
calculated
into
their
last
few
years
of
service
for
their
pension.
Does
that
does
that
that
affect
it?
That
much
depends
on
future
pension.
Is
that
figured
in
in
the
actuary.
I
It's
been
this,
we
don't
necessarily
have
really
lump
sum
payouts.
Those
the
lump
sum
payouts
in
this
system
would
be
people
who
have
maybe
left
the
system
and
had
were
in
the
process
of
purchasing
time
as
a
refund
of
the
purchase
of
time
and
but
there's
no
lump
sum
payouts
from
from
our
system.
Okay,
so
basically,
what
if
somebody
was
purchasing
time,
but
then
they
left,
they
would
get
a
refund
of
that
time
that
they
purchased,
and
so
it's
really
been
their
contribution,
not
a
lump
sum
payout
of
their
pension.
I
Normally
not
in
the
general
system,
because
they
don't
they're
not
allowed.
Most
of
them
are
not
all.
They
have
very
limited,
how
much
overtime
they
can
put
in
it.
It's
just
a
regular
pay
and
a
small
amount
of
overtime
in
the
police
and
fire
system.
Their
contracts
are
structured
where
some
of
their
payouts
get
rolled
into
their
pension.
I
A
I
E
No
just
a
couple:
first,
questions
I've
been
asking
them
for
a
long
time.
354
Rosemary
I
was
listening
on
Zoom,
actually
and
I
heard
something
about
the
dropper
program.
Councilman
Muscat
asked
we
lost
money
last
year,
I
I
assume,
and
there
is
in
the
contract,
five
percent
given
to
the
dropper
program,
and
this
question
I
have
been
asking
for
the
last.
Probably
seven
eight
years
and
I
need
some
clear
answer.
E
A
E
To
pay
the
participant
five
percent
interest
on
their
money
and
this
could
be
removed
by
negotiation,
which
happened
recently,
but
it
did
not
so
I
want
to
know
what
is
the
effect
on
the
resident?
Do
we
pay
it
when
the
actuary
report
is
prepared,
as
five
percent
added
to
what
they
ask
for,
or
do
we
take
it
from
the
funds
which
are
in
the
pension
you
know
fund
and
give
it
to
them.
D
E
Sure
I
spoke
to
Francois
when
I
was
in
the
treasurer
office,
and
he
gave
me
the
same
answer.
Some
people
come
and
say:
no,
we
do
not
pay.
It
I'm,
just
asking
very
clear
question,
and
he
just
said
if
we
do
not
make
five
percent
or
more,
the
resident
of
the
city
have
to
make
up
that
five
percent
am
I,
correct,
Francois.
H
H
D
I
So
the
amounts
are
not
actually
paid
out.
There
could
increase
an
individual's
value
in
their
drop
account,
so
their
amount
would
go
up,
and
so
what
I
think
Francois
is
saying
is
it
becomes
part
of
the
liabilities
of
the
system
and
the
liabilities
that
compared
against
the
assets,
and
then
the
calculation
of
the
amount
of
the
of
the
contribution
is
calculated
and
how
the
unfunded
part
of
that
is
being
amortized
over
over
periods.
You
know
over
the
15
years
right
so.
E
G
I
C
E
E
The
negotiation
which
was
done
by
the
mayor
was:
the
police
gave
four
percent
four
percent
and
five
percent
increases
in
salary.
Was
there
any
actuary
report
done
to
show
the
effect
of
that
increase
on
the
pension
or
the
budget
or
the
liability
to
the
resident?
Did
you
do
any
actual
report
where
you
asked
to
do
any
actuary
report.
D
E
The
salary
has
increased,
which
means
the
pension
will
be
increased
because
the
contribution
will
be
increased.
I'm
just
asking
as
smart,
smart
decision
making
is
to
know
exactly
what
you
go
into
affect
the
resident
with.
How
is
your
budget
going
to
be
affected?
Do
you
have
that
money?
Do
you
have
to
increase
the
mileage?
I
Chair,
thank
you,
sir.
The
actual,
the
actual
evaluation
report.
We
do
what
they
call
an
experience
study
every
five
years
and
so
that
experience
study,
kind
of
shows
us
of
what
the
payrolls
have
done
during
those
during
those
last
five
years,
and
so
we
then
at
the
board
would
say
well.
We
need
to
make
an
Actuarial
assumption
based
on
wage
increases.
So
there
is
a
wage
increase
assumption
in
the
report.
I
So
while
it
may
not
be
I
mean
I,
don't
know
what
it
is
off
the
top
of
my
head,
but
so
like
the
wage
increases
may
have
been
four
percent.
We
may
only
assume
three
and
a
half
so
then
there
would
be
an
effect
over
our
experience.
Experience
of
what
we,
because
we're
only
assuming
one
I
mean
we
make
so
many
assumptions
when
these
are
put
together.
I
G
My
last
remark
real
quickly
on
what
you
said.
There
I
asked
for
an
actuary
on
this
command
concert
command
officers
contract
three
or
four
weeks
ago,
and
they
said
that
they
hadn't
done
one
yet,
but
they
were
going
to
do
one.
It
was
either
the
Comptroller
or
the
HR
departments.
That
said,
that,
did
we
ever
instruct
them
to
do
an
actuary
report
on
that
contract?
E
My
last
question:
we
are
short
28
officers
at
the
police
department,
which
means
the
salaries
went
down
big
time.
What
is
the
effect
on
the
number
which
they
are
asking
for?
Is
it
based
on
the
full
number,
which
was
in
working
at
the
police
department
or
minus
the
28th,
which
we
have
now
less
the
contributions
you
ask
in
this
resident
to
pay
should
be
less
because
you
have
less
number
of
people
working.
D
D
when
the
contribution
is
made
more
often
than
not
the
Comptroller's
office
or
the
finance
department
makes
the
normal
cost
payment.
They
take
the
rate
that
we've
got
that
18.71
percent
and
they
multiply
it
with
the
pace
that
they
have
at
that
point
in
time,
and
if
the
pays
are
lower,
then
that,
then,
that
normal
cost
contribution
amount
would
be
lower.
Okay,
thank.
A
C
Chair,
yes,
you
had
a
question.
Yeah
I
had
one
question
and
or
actually
several
questions,
but
one
and
I
apologize
for
being
late
for
the
Mayor,
John,
Riley,
so
obviously
versus
statement.
Obviously,
the
more
employees
participating
in
the,
for
example,
in
the
police
department
and
the
pension
you
know
paying
into
the
pension
the
Richer
the
funnel
be
so.
The
new
civilian
employees
that
were
just
negotiated
two
new
positions,
civilian
positions-
are
they
being
paid
a
pension?
I
Maybe
the
Comptroller
knows
I'm
not
an
attorney,
but
if
they're
not
police
officers,
they
won't
be
in
the
police
and
fire
system,
they
would
most
likely
be
in
the
general
government
system,
like
the
like
the
like
the
secretary
at
the
police
department,
she
is
in
the
general
system
she's
not
in
the
ACT
345
system,
she's,
not
a
foreign
officer
or
fight
or
firefighter.
So
then
they
would
be
part
of
the
general
government
system.
Thank
you.
If
that
answers
your
question,
it
does
okay.