►
From YouTube: Public Pension Oversight Board (10-19-21)
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
The
percentage
that
was
was
done
under
for
some
of
the
systems
more
than
one
percent.
At
a
time
you
know
I
my
gut
tells
me
that's
not
a
smart
thing
to
do
as
we
later
corrected
through
some
legislation
about
how
much
that
we
will
require
the
employers
to
contribute.
We
had
to
soften
that
or
smooth
it
somewhat.
So
you
know
a
reduction
in
an
assumption
whether
it's
you
know
for
investments
or
anything
else.
If
they
do
a
pine
on
that,
that
would
be
something
I
think
would
we'd
find
very
interesting.
B
You
know
that
that
might
be
something
that
we
could
put
in
a
scope
of
work.
It
might
be
something
that
they
were
already
done.
I
do
think
that
you
would
find
interesting.
Perhaps
a
comment
as
to
the.
I
believe
that
the
cers
phase
in
was
something
that
was
discussed
in
the
last
audit,
so
just
just
as
an
aside.
C
You're
right,
I
was
on
mute,
you'd.
Think
I'd
have
this
figured
out
by
now
chairman
all
right.
Thank
you
for
letting
me
speak.
C
But
so
thank
you
for
the
minute.
I
really
don't
have
a
question
at
this
time.
I
I
just
want
to
make
a
statement.
You
introduced
yourself
jumper
as
brad
jr,
and
it
kind
of
made
me
chuckle,
because
I
used
to
really
worry
whatever
would
happen
if
we
lost
brad.
C
If
somebody
else
scooped
brad
up
and
it's
nice
to
know,
we
have
a
brad
junior,
but
with
that
being
said,
I
just
want
to
say
that
I'm
always
amazed
and
impressed
at
the
knowledge,
the
capability
and
the
just
the
the
the
abilities
that
you
you
and
your
lrc
team
brand.
You
and
the
lrc
folks
bring
to
us
legislators.
We
legislators
we
could
not
do
what
we
do
if
we
didn't
have
you
and
I'm
just
really
appreciative
of
your
knowledge
and
capability.
C
This
presentation
was
a
perfect
example
of
the
fact
that
you've
done
your
homework
and
you
know
how
to
help
us
keep
these
systems
afloat.
So
the
four
and
a
half
million
kentuckians
that
depend
on
you.
Thank
you
for
what
you
do.
You
don't
hear
it
enough.
So
thank
you.
That's
all
I
wanted
to
say,
mr
chairman,
thank.
A
A
Okay,
we'll
we'll
we'll
take
that
under
advisement
and
again
I
want
to
echo
what
co-chair
duplessi
said.
Thank
you
and
brad
for
your
work.
A
For
with
this
committee
you're,
you
know,
you've
just
really
helped
us
understand
a
very
complicated
issue,
and-
and
this
has
been
a
complicated
issue
with
no
further
questions,
we
will
proceed
with
the
rfi
and
we
will
have
a
lot
of
opportunities
going
forward
to
ask
questions
and
that's
a
good
thing
about
the
rfi,
we're
we're
not
setting
anything
in
in
stone
today
that
and
we'll
have
a
lot
of
opportunities
as
we
go
through
this
process,
so
jennifer.
Thank
you
very
much
and
a
very,
very
thorough
presentation,
and
we
certainly
appreciate
it.
A
No
we've
I've
asked
staff
and
they
said
no
motion
was
necessary
on
that.
We've
already
made
the
motion
to
and
to
do
the
appropriate
the
money
and
go
through
the
process,
so
we're
we're
good.
A
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
I
I
asked
that
very
question
just
a
few
minutes
ago.
So
I'm
glad
you
asked
me
so
I
could
share
that
knowledge
with
you,
mr
eager,
if
you
don't
mind,
rep
identify
yourself
for
the
record
and
please
proceed.
D
A
Yes,
if
you
don't
mind,
please
introduce
yourself
welcome
to
kentucky
and
the
our
committee
meeting
today.
E
Yes,
hello:
this
is
danny
white
with
gabriela
smith,
actuary
for
kppa.
E
You
know
the
part
I
don't
know
that
would
probably
I'd
suggest
discuss
internally
is
on
timing
for
for
lrcs
and
and
the
ppob's
internal
business
needs.
E
You
know
in
terms
of
kppa
they
get
their,
they
get
their
actuarial
valuation
reports
they
adopt
them
in
december,
so
that
would
be
the
earliest
that
anything
could
be
provided
to
an
oddity
auditing
actuary
in
terms
of
the
valuation
in
terms
of
census,
data
or
anything
to
review
other
than
assumptions
which
they
could
see
that
from
the
experience
study
report,
but
I
definitely
feel
like
it
was
a
well
thought
out
approach
with
the
rfi
and
she's
right,
there's
just
going
to
be
a
limited
number
of
firms
that
that
are
that
do
this
type
of
work
from
you
know
for
public
retirement
systems,
so
the
you
know,
you're
gonna
be
a
limited
number
of
of
firms.
E
D
Okay,
I
guess
the
the
question
is:
why
am
I
here
today?
I
have
a
feeling
that
there
are
meetings
like
this
going
on
all
over
the
country
and
the
primary
reason
initially
was,
which
started
in
july
and
august
was
the
investment
return
that
retirement
systems
across
the
country
earned
collectively
we
were
up
25.2
for
the
year
into
june
30th
of
2021..
D
We
were
actually
at
the
lower
end
below
the
average.
That's
due
to
the
the
lower
risk
posture
we
have.
The
more
conservative
asset
allocation,
but
anywhere
from
22
to
30
is
kind
of
the
going
rate.
So
I
think
that's
one
issue
that
got
this
ball
rolling
here
in
kentucky.
I
think,
give
credit
to
jim
carroll
he's
raised
the
issue,
I
think
he's
an
excellent
advocate.
We
find
to
be
an
excellent
ad
advocate
for
retirees
and
a
very
professional
approach.
D
What's
happened
since
july
and
we
got
these
numbers
we're
now
facing
inflation.
We
have
the
social
security
has
just
announced.
Their
cola
for
2022
is
5.9,
that's
a
multiple
of
what
has
been
in
recent
years
and
and
secondly,
most
the
average
retirement
system
nationwide
is
a
public
system,
is
over
82
funded.
So
most
funds
are
in
a
much
better
position
than
we
are
to
be
able
to
take
on
a
to
take
on
a
cola.
D
We
talk
about
earning
the
25
percent.
Actually,
k9
has
earned
22
6
and
k
and
c9
has
earned
26
25
6.
the
premium
they
earned
over.
The
assumption
in
both
cases
was
17.4
19.3,
the
shortfall
we
had
in
2009
versus
the
assumptions.
The
current
assumption,
not
the
then
assumptions.
I
don't
have
that
number
at
hand
22.5
and
23.8.
So
we
lost
more
money
relative
to
the
assumptions
in
2009.
Then
we
gained
in
2021..
D
That's
the
two
tails
and
I
we
want
to
keep
that
in
mind
that
there's,
I
think
as
grs
would
say.
If
you
give
a
call
away,
you
can't
get
it
back
and
that's
what
we
that's
the
judgment
that
has
to
take
place
and-
and,
as
you
know,
we
don't
we're
not
taking
a
policy
stand
one
way
or
another.
I'm
here
to
present
information
answer
questions,
as
are
the
grs
people,
but
I
wanted
to
hit
the
history
of
colas
gotta
schedule
going
going
back.
D
D
I
talked
about
practices
in
other
states,
I'm
going
to
would
just
generalize
on
that
put
into
the
statutes
that
apply
and
then
grs
has
projected
the
cost
of
a
variety
of
scenarios,
including
jim
carroll's,
1.5
percent
cola
for
five
years.
D
So
types
of
colas
they're
all
over
the
map,
the
main
starting
point
is:
are
they
automatic
or
are
they
ad
hoc
and
by
automatic
they're
built
in
and
they
occur?
There
can
be
a
formula
established.
It
can
be
a
certain
percentage,
but
it
happens
year
after
year
after
year.
D
Until
it's
taken
away
ad
hoc
says
it's
dealt
with
every
year
or
it's
dealt
with
periodically
and
and
we
are
you'll
see
in
kentucky
we
went
years
doing
ad
hoc
and
then
in
1996
we
went
to
automatic
and
I
I
wasn't
around
in
1996,
I
suspect
part
of
the
driver
was
you
didn't,
have
to
keep
going
back
to
legislature
each
year
and
asking
for
go
through
that
process
it
got
set
up
and
what
was
perceived
perceived
to
be
a
reasonable,
prudent
banner.
D
D
D
It's
not
a
simple
answer.
There's
a
variety
of
things.
But
let's
look
at
the
history
in
kentucky,
starting
in
the
60s
we
had
four
colas.
They
ranged
from
0.25
to
1.4
percent
1.47
percent.
They
varied
in
different
years.
In
the
70s
we
had
three
that
provided
colas
from
two
to
five
percent
in
the
80s.
D
Now
we're
dealing
in
colas
just
about
every
year
we
had
nine
and
they
sometimes
were
based
on
years
of
service
and
so
much
a
month,
and
sometimes
they
were
the
percentage
most
often
four
or
four
and
a
half
percent
cola.
D
That
and
as
it
says,
it
goes
up
to
fifteen
percent.
That's
a
was
a
very
small
group
of
people
who
had
a
long
long
service,
but
nonetheless
there
was
a
15
cola
in
the
90s
again
we're
dealing
with
typically
two
to
three
percent.
D
D
By
the
way,
inflation
in
the
60s,
here's
how
inflation
went
in
the
62
on
the
average
2.3
percent
70s
was
7.1.
D
D
But
if
you
took
nonetheless,
you
know
two
and
a
half
doesn't
it
seems
like
pretty
moderate
inflation,
but
if
you
took
a
a
retiree
who
who
went
out
at
25,
000
and
and
lost
2
percent
a
year
in
inflation
purchasing
power
at
the
end
at
the
end
of
20
years,
they
would
have
point
six
seven
purchasing
power
now,
in
other
words,
they'd
lose
just
two
percent
inflation
for
twenty
years,
you're
going
to
lose
a
thirty
purchasing
power.
D
D
The
problem
was
that
we
didn't
prepay
for
the
colas
and
by
statute
so
that
if
in
a
given
year,
we
gave
a
four
and
a
half
percent
cola,
that's
going
to
be
in
place
for
as
long
as
that
person
lives,
there's
a
a
a
pretty
significant
cost
associated
with
that
and
and
it
in
from
a
fiscal
standpoint.
The
best
thing
would
be
was
to
pay
that
upfront
and
get
it
covered,
and
we
didn't
do
that
and
that
added
to
the
unfunded
liability,
pfm
would
say
it
added
about
2.4
billion
dollars.
D
D
Liability.
Here's
what
the
statutes
say.
This
is
senate
bill
2
in
2013..
A
1.5
cola
will
be
granted
in
the
future.
D
The
coal
is
provided,
so
my
interpretation
would
be
we're
looking
at
the
second
bullet
in
terms
of
what
you're
considering
and
the
the
the
the
one
and
a
half
percent
five-year
cola
that
jim
carroll's
put
on
the
table
or
any
other
option
might
be
come
into
play
as
the
requiring
pre
being
fully
pre-funded
and
new
colas
are
now
a
part
are
not
a
part
of
the
inviolable
contract
and
they
haven't
been
actually
since
1996,
so
they
can
be
taken
away.
D
Here's
back
to
the:
why
are
we
here
today?
One
of
the
contributing
reasons
is
the
inflation
rate
in
2021
and
where
you
know,
there's
a
you
talk
to
two
economists
and
one
says
it's
here
to
stay
and
one
says
it's
transitional
and
we
just
don't
know,
but
there
seem
to
be
indications,
it's
going
to
continue
at
a
higher
level,
so
for
some
period
of
time.
D
Nationally,
what
are
people
doing
by
the
way
I
didn't
say
earlier,
but
the
automatic
versus
the
ad
hoc
it's
about
two
and
a
half
to
one
automatic
versus
ad
hoc,
so
it's
much
more
prevalent
to
be
automatic
than
it
is
ad
hoc.
I
suspect
and
grs
can
weigh
in
on
this.
I
suspect
that
ratio
is
going
to
change.
I
suspect
that
more
states
are
going
to
want
flexibility.
D
They
may
want
to
do
one-time
things
like
this,
like
jim
carroll
is
proposing,
so
I
think
we
may
see
more
ad
hocs,
but
here's
the
general
trend
moving
away
from
cpi
driven
moving
toward
caps.
In
other
words,
something
if
even
if
it
is
indexed
off
something
it's
going
to
have
a
cap,
no
more
than
three
percent,
no
more
than
five
percent.
D
Those
seem
to
be
common
caps
and
be
a
fixed
rate,
so
fixed
rate
automatically
caps
it,
but
we're
going
to
use
three
percent
or
two
percent
or
one
and
a
half
percent
in
this
case,
and
now
more
are
being
tied
to
financial
conditions,
funded
status
and
investment
performance,
and
at
our
last
meeting
representative
plessy,
you
raised
a
question
about
this
whole
issue
of
a
little
bit
of
the
concept.
D
We're
talking
about
is
getting
a
dividend
and,
and
we
and
we
talked
about
well,
you
can,
you
can
pay
a
cola
out,
but
you
can't
recapture
it
once
it's
out
the
door.
Well,
there
are
ways
that
that
can
be
done
and
danny
started
talking
about
wisconsin
as
an
example
and
setting
up
a
reserve
fund.
I
don't
danny
you
want
to
comment
on
that.
E
Yeah
wisconsin
provides
a
dividend,
they're
very
clear
that
it's
it's
not
a
it's,
not
a
guarantee,
you
you
have
your
basic
retirement
benefit
and
then
they
they
look
at
actual
investment
performance.
They
compared
to
a
benchmark
if
the
investment
performance
exceeds
that
amount,
then
that
surplus
of
those
extra
assets
are
then
used
to
provide
a
an
increased
benefit
or
dividend
to
retirees
and
then,
in
years,
where
the
actual
investment
performance
underperforms
compared
to
the
benchmark,
they
actually
claw
back
or
pull
back
that
dividend,
but
never
below
your
original
retirement
benefit.
E
The
key
there
is
there's
inherent,
you
know
it's
it's
it's
just
with
everything.
You
know
any
type
of
benefit,
there's
no
such
thing
as
a
free
lunch.
So
in
that
regard
it's
it's
there's
an
assumption,
there's
an
inherent
assumption
or
expectation
that
a
dividend
will
be
provided.
E
So
you
know
there
is
a
cost
to
it.
It's
not
a
free,
it's
not
a
free
benefit.
You
know,
even
when
you
think
of
in
terms
of
of
excess
returns,
but
there's
an
inherent
building
or
cost
associated
with
it.
But
what
does
make
wisconsin
unique?
Is
they
they
do?
They
can
and
they
do
claw
back,
but
if
you
look
at
them
financially,
they're
they're,
100
percent,
funded
they've
always
been
that
way.
E
You
know
by
design,
because
of
that
the
other
thing
you
think
of
the
it
in
terms
of
the
contribution,
the
employer
contributions
are
more
steady,
because
now
you
have
this
other
financial
lever
that
you
you've
got
pulled
on
your,
and
that
is
the
retirees
now
become,
bears
some
of
the
investment
risk
yeah
they
benefit
when
things
do
well,
but
they
also
there's
a
cost
to
them
an
inherent
risk
to
them.
During
years
of
underperformance,
like
2008-2009.
D
Okay,
so
we
asked
grs
to
to
provide
financial
considerations
here,
most
notably
in
the
end.
What's
it
going
to
cost
and
we've
got
a
number
of
different
scenarios
that
I'm
going
to
look
at,
but
let's
start
with
with
just
the
status
of
the
plans-
and
this
is
june
30
of
2020-
not
21.,
but
it
is
the.
The
bottom
line
is
the
the.
If
you
want
to
call
it
the
dividend
or
the
surplus,
that's
the
amount
of
dollars
that
each
of
the
funds
earn
over
and
above
their
assumed
rate
of
interest
in
2021..
D
So,
as
you
would
guess,
you
know
to
take
a
look
at
k-9.
Has
390
million
c9
has
a
million
331
and
the
reason
is
if
it's
so
much
better
funded,
and
so
it
has
a
much
higher
ratio
of
assets
to
liabilities.
D
But
in
total
it's
about
2.347
billion
of
we
call
it
a
dividend
a
premium,
and
but
I'm
going
to
remind
you
that
we
would
have
had
a
had.
We
had
a
2009
we'd
had
a
bigger
deficit
than
that,
and
that's
I
mean
just
just
a
fact.
D
The
by
the
way,
the
june
30
of
2021
evaluations
will
be
out
very
shortly.
I've.
I
know
what
the
funded
status
is
going
to
be
so,
for
example,
k
on,
as
is
for
actually
14.2
is
going
up
to
16
8.
might
have
expected
a
bigger
bump
than
that
in
two
things.
One
is
again,
this
is
that's
a
relatively
small
amount
of
assets
and
we're
using
actuarial,
smoothing
five-year
smoothing
if
it
had
been
the
market
value,
it'd
be
eighteen.
Five,
the
bigger
one
is
cnn,
has
is
going
from
49
to.
D
I'm
looking
at
my
notes,
57
well
51
8.
Had
it
been
market
value
to
be
575.,
so
it's
it's
going
to
graduate
to
get
a
bigger
bang
over
the
next
five
years
than
than
k
is,
but
but
I'll
remind
you,
we've
had
this
will
be
the
fourth
year
in
a
row.
We've
had
increasing
amounts
of
funded
status.
That
starts
slow,
it's
the
principle
of
the
mortgage.
It
builds
each
year
and
we're
on
the
right
track,
and
it's
just
going
to
take
26
more
years
to
take
care
of
that
27
years.
D
Here's
the
cost,
starting
with
I
keep
calling
it
the
jim
carroll
number.
I
mean
it's
he's
the
one
who
brought
it
up:
1.5
dividend
or
increase
for
current
retirees
payable
for
five
years,
171
million
the
actuaries
would
suggest
you
should
pay
that
171
million
today.
D
D
The
another
option
that
the
grs
suggested
was
it
was
simpler
and
they
they
have
witnessed
it
having
perhaps
what
they
think
is
more
impact,
and
that
is
do
one
time
give
them
a
13th
check.
For
example,
june
30th
of
2022
give
them
an
extra
check
that
costs
about
eight
point,
two
percent,
three
percent.
I
mean
that's
what
roughly
one
you
know,
one
twelfth
of
what
it
would
be.
D
That's
188
million
one
advantage,
two
advantages,
one
that
grs
points
out
is:
they
think
from
their
experiences,
had
more
impact,
immediate
impact
and
bigger
impact,
and
what
we
would
point
out
is,
I
jokingly
keep
saying
I
wouldn't
want
to
be
in
our
call
center.
Five
years,
six
years
from
now,
when
people
find
out
their
benefits,
went
down
and
they're
gonna
call
and
they're
gonna
think
we
made
a
mistake
and
they're
going
to
forget.
They
got
it
or
it's
going
to
be
one
of
their
beneficiaries.
D
So
the
third
is,
if
you
take
the
1.5
increase
and
just
let
it
run,
I
don't
don't
don't
increase
it
anymore,
but
just
let
it
run
until
all
the
people
who
are
getting
it
are
have
died
off
352
million.
D
The
next
one
now
we're
getting
into
why
these
things
are
so
expensive
and
they're
probably
going
to
be
cost
prohibitive,
not
our
decision,
but
it
would
appear
to
be
take
five
one
and
a
half
annual
increases
from
the
current
year
and
cap
it
after
five
years,
so
you
keep
bumping
it
a
billion
five
and
then,
lastly,
is
you
know
a
permanent
1.5.
Every
year,
6.0
billion.
F
D
You
know
that
leads
to
another
one,
that's
not
even
on
here
that
every
five
years
you
could
do
a
a
supplemental
check
at
roughly-
let's
just
say
one-fifth
of
that
amount,
but
that
they
get
it
once
a
year.
G
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
going
back
to
the
one
that
mentioned
the
funding
trends.
I
was
thinking
somewhere
around
here,
but
maybe
I
missed
it
or
looked
at
it.
I
was
thinking,
there's
something
about
capping
it.
It
aged
some
of
these
dealt
specifically
with
like.
If
you
hit
someone
that
retired
very
early
and
you
were
paying
a
cola,
the
coal
would
actually
not
be
given
to
the
younger
ones,
just
ones
that
had
been
in
this,
not
necessarily
in
the
system
but
based
on
an
age
criteria.
F
Senator
mills-
thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Just
clarification,
dave
back
on
page
four,
when
you
were
talking
about
the
history
on
colas,
you
mentioned
that,
did
I
hear
you
right
to
say
that
none
of
these
were
none
of
these
were
prepaid,
but
were
some
of
these
paid
for
that
are
listed
or
none
of
them
were
paid
for.
D
Well,
they
they
end
up
impacting
the
contribution
rate
the
very
next
year
right,
but
it's
it's
effectively
amortized
over
a
long
period
of
time.
So
the
immediate
impact
is
pretty
small
yeah.
F
F
Okay,
has
there
ever
been
a
evaluation
put
on
what
the
cost
of
these
colas
rolled
into
each
other
has
cost
the
system.
The.
D
Pfm
made
a
calculation
that
it
was
15
of
the
reason
for
the
unfunded
liability,
which
works
out
about
2.4
billion
yeah
and
the
I
don't
know
how
to
unpeel
the
rest
of
it.
But
but
the
negative
amortization,
which
is
negative
amortization,
means
that
you
don't
even
pay
the
interest.
If
you're
thinking
about
a
mortgage,
I
got
a
mortgage
payment,
I'm
not
even
paying
the
interest,
so
the
principal
gets
bigger
and
bigger.
That's
a
big
number
and
this
would
have
contributed
to
it.
But
I
don't
know
what
to
what
extent.
C
Thank
you,
chairman
just
wanted
to
make
a
comment
about
this.
Mr
eager
dave,
I
you've
done
a
good
job
as
always
presenting
this
data
and
helping
us
to
research.
What's
happened
in
the
past,
but
we're
kind
of
stuck,
as
I
see
it,
in
my
opinion,
in
a
rock
and
a
hard
place,
if,
if
financially
for
the
system,
it's
best
not
to
give
a
cola
for
the
next
26
years.
C
As
I
see
it,
we
don't
give
anybody
a
cola
for
26
years
until
we
get
fixed
or
we
give
a
cola
and
we
figure
out
how
to
pay
for
it
and
it
I'm
just
sitting
here
thinking,
there's
no
way
it's
been
2012..
C
So
that's
truly
that's
another
10
years
ago,
so
that
would
be
36
years
literally
the
life
of
an
entire
retirement
age
persons
you
know,
retirement,
they
never
got
a
call
that
they
were
expecting
counting
on
and
needing.
I
don't
think
that's
a
way
that
we
should.
We
should
go
forward.
C
C
D
Well,
I'm
going
to
be
talking
about
some
things,
I'll,
let
grs
weigh
into
and
and
again
I
I
can
talk
about
some
policy
issues
doesn't
mean
we're
recommending
it
it's
just
there
is.
We
did
have
the
discussion
at
one
time
about
a
glide
path,
in
other
words,
contribute
the
cost
of
the
for
the
systems.
May
one
year
be
eighty
percent
the
next
year
might
be
six
when
we
hit
that
cliff
and
is
there
a
way
to
gradually
get
there
and
extend
that
period
of
time
we
call
it
a
glide
path.
D
I
don't
know
it's
a
proper
term
or
not,
but
maybe
in
beginning
in
the
year
11
you
start
reducing
it
the
cost,
but
you
extend
it
beyond
the
26
years.
If
you
follow
the
concept
it
goes,
it
would
go
down
every
year
by
some
amount
and
that
would
be
money
available.
Currently
I
don't
know
there
are
people
float
pension
obligation,
bonds
to
pay
for
colas?
I
suspect
somebody
has
and
and
push
the
maturity
that
bound
bond
out
further,
so
to
a
point
where
they
feel
they
can
where
they
can
afford
it.
D
E
Yeah
we
looked
at
the
glide
path
last
year
and
or
or
two
years
ago.
We
could
find
that
that
work
that
was
done
you're
exactly
right.
E
It
was
to
avoid
this
cliff
and
I've,
and
I
think
the
answer,
the
conclusion
that
I
remember
at
least
one
of
the
conclusions
I
came
to
it
is
it's
something:
that's
very
doable
and
I
think
it's
in
the
works,
but
because
your
current,
your
current
position
or
your
current
funding
period,
that
you
need
to
wait
a
while
before
you
start
before
you
start
that
glide
path
you
need
to
get
to
you
know,
let's
say
another
10
or
15
years,
and
then
you,
you
start
ramping
down
the
the
contributions
you
know
as
the
funded
status
improves,
but
you
never
fall
in
that
negative
amortization,
conundrum
that
you
had
before
and
then
to
the
other
part
about
the
colas.
E
It
is
a
tough
spot.
You
know
they,
I
you
know
not
make
it
sound
any
better,
but
it's
just
I'm
stating
a
fact
here
is
the
the
retirees
in
krs
do
have
some
inflation
protection
with
social
security,
because
the
vast
majority
of
earned
benefits
and
social
security,
and
that's
not
the
case
with
the
teachers.
It's
my
understanding,
most
of
the
teachers
and
the
trs
are,
are
not
covered
by
social
security.
E
So
that's
that
is
one
difference,
and
so
they
it's,
they
don't
have
full
inflation
protection,
but
they
have
partial
which,
which
helps
dampen
some
of
the
lost
wage.
You
know
the
purchasing
power
of
their
benefit,
but
other
than
that
yeah
colas
are
very
expensive
and
the
cost
is
keep
is
going
to
keep
going
up.
As
you
get
more
and
more
retirees
to
provide
the
same
level
of
benefit,
I
mean
you
can
see
that
it's,
it's
it's
an
expensive
benefit.
E
A
one
percent
cola
will
add
about
seven
to
eight
percent
to
the
value
of
a
benefit.
You
know
if
you
make
it
a
permanent
cola,
just
just
one
percent
you're,
adding
the
the
value
of
that
person's
retirement
benefit
goes
up
by
anywhere
from
seven
to
nine
percent.
D
I
think
there's
another
factor.
I
have
no
idea
what
the
numbers
are,
but
a
number
of
our
retirees
work.
I
mean
they
retire
and
they
take
another
job
and
go
somewhere
so
they're
they
are,
they
have
a
supplemental
income
and
that
income
presumably
is
going
up
by
some
amount.
Hopefully,
but
but
I
don't
know
what
those
numbers
are.
C
Mr
chairman,
I
had
two
two
follow-ups
mr
eager
just
spoke
to
one
of
them.
Could
I
continue.
C
So
david,
you
just
touched
on
what
my
thought
was.
Is
it
possible.
C
It's
one
for
a
working
age
person
not
to
get
a
call-up,
but
it's
another
thing
for
a
person,
who's
not
of
working
age
or
working
ability
to
to
get
a
call
and-
and-
and
maybe
this
is
a
a
question
to
to
our
lrc
staff-
either
jennifer
or
brad.
But
wouldn't
we
be
allowed
to
do
a
cola
just
for
those
who
are
disabled
and
or
above
a
working
age?
Is
that
something
we
would
be
allowed
to
do?
Or
is
it
not
abrupt?
It
has
to
be
done
for
what
has
been
done
for
all.
D
I'll
let
lrc
respond,
but
that
deals
with
auditor
harmon's
question
of
there
are
some
that'll
say
the
cola
kicks
in
at
age,
65
or
age
62
or
whatever
you
choose
to
do,
but
that
would
be
a
and
I
I
would
suspect
that
grs
could
give
a
cost
calculation
on
you
say:
oh
let's,
let's
make
it
65.
C
To
me,
that
makes
it
it
makes
it
more
stomachable
for
for
a
lot
of
us,
because
what
we
don't
want
are
people
who
are
on
a
fixed
income
and
have
no
ability
to
to
raise
their
income
they're
the
ones
who
are
accounting
counting
on
those
goals
to
keep
up
with
inflation
that
so
far
we
haven't
done
so
I
I
I'm
most
concerned
about
those
retirees
or,
let's
just
say,
75
years
old
and
and
not
able
to
go
to
work
any
longer.
That's
the
ones
that
I'm
really
concerned
about.
C
So
if
we
could
put
some
focus
on
that,
I
don't
want
to.
I
don't
know
if
that's
something
that
mr
white
could
could
put
to
us,
so
it
would
be
a
comparison
from
171
million
to
next
million.
If
we
put
an
agent,
say
67,
which
I
believe
is,
is
the
social
security
age.
Maybe
maybe
we
can
do
something
like
that
yeah,
isn't
it
something
he
could
send
us
gary.
D
Yeah
he's
shaking
he
said
yes
representative.
I
I
also
commented
on
all
these
variations.
You
see,
you
can
see
some
of
the
say,
we'll
do
a
cola
on
the
first
ten
thousand.
D
C
Well,
I
think,
I
think,
as
as
leaders
of
our
pension
system,
we
need
to
look
out
to
be
able
to
take
care
of
those.
You
can't
take
care
of
themselves,
and-
and
this
would
be
something
I
would
ask
you
guys-
to
help
us
research.
But
my
last
question
is
this
deals
with
the
payroll
assumptions.
C
C
I
apologize.
Let
me
try
that
again.
If
you
were
to
do
if
we
were
to
do
a
1.5
cola
across
the
board,
that
would
essentially
be
a
big
boost
to
the
percent
payroll
assumptions
that
the
system
makes
so
does.
The
171
million
estimate
include
the
savings
that
we
would
see
by
having
an
increased
payroll
amount.
E
C
E
Other
suggestion
is
to
maybe
approach
the
approach,
the
issue
from
the
other
end,
and
if
you
it
could
be
helpful
if
we
identify
what
what
is
the
budget,
you
know
what
is
the
general
assembly
willing
to
to
stand
for
four
cola
and
then
you
can
find
out
how
much
coal
you
can
cut
it
out
various
different
ways
to
find
out
how
much
cola
you
can
provide,
and
sometimes,
if
you,
if
you
look
at
it
in
that
regard,
it
will
cut
down
the
number
of
scenarios
that
you're
you're
looking
at
or
you
get
more
directed
okay.
E
This
is
this
is
what
we
want
just
a
suggestion,
but
yeah,
certainly
you
don't
have
to
take
it.
C
C
Anyway,
but
thank
you
for
hoping,
I
appreciate
any
feedback
you
have
I'll
talk
to
other
folks
about,
but
if
we
have
a
number,
as
the
legislature
will
come
back.
D
Yeah
and
if
you
have
some
any
general
ideas
about
scenarios,
but
in
the
meantime,
I
think
you
know
we're
prepared
to
look
at
calculating
costs
of
some
various
scenarios.
You
can
interpolate
between
numbers
and
better,
give
you
an
idea
of
some
alternatives
with
the
I
I
think,
with
the
with
the
express
goal
of
trying
to
get
more
money
to
people
who
are
more
deserving
and
more
in
need.
G
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
This
is
just
a
point
of
clarification.
Going
back
when
you
were
talking
about
the
glide
path.
Potentially
I
know
we
had
talked
about,
maybe
the
glide
path.
I
know
we
had
also
talked
about
it.
One
time,
stackable
liabilities,
you
know
a
continuous
30-year
m
each
year.
If
there's
a
if
there's
a
gain,
then
you
aim
that
out
30
years,
if
there's
a
loss,
you
aim
that
out
30
years.
Is
that
the
same
or
a
separate
concept.
D
No,
this
is
saying:
let's
just
let's
assume
we
have
a
level
payment,
it's
going
to
actually
go
down
a
bit,
but,
let's
just
say
we
have
a
level
payment
of
a
million
dollars
a
year
for
the
next
27
years
and
at
the
end
in
the
27th
year
it
goes
down
to
100
000..
D
D
So
you,
whatever
you,
take
off
the
top
here,
you're
going
to
add
at
the
end,
but
it
it
gets
rid
of
that
issue
of
you
know.
Contributions
went
from
two
and
a
half
billion
to
200
million,
and
some
people
would
love
that.
But
it's
it's
it's
kind
of
a
bit
of
a
financial
conundrum.
If.
D
E
Mr
harman
you're
you're
exactly
right
on
on
how
that's
how
that's
achieved
or
how
it
looks,
instead
of
taking
that
one
large
amortization
base,
what
it
does
is:
you're
breaking
it
up
into
15
or
20
different
tranches
or
layer
damorization,
and
each
one
is
amortized
over
a
shorter,
shorter
period
or
a
longer
period.
You
know
over
different
periods,
so
as
those
layers
those
individual
layers
get
fully
amortized,
then
that's
how
you
achieve
the
objective
of
your
contribution
requirement
going
down.
A
Thank
you
and
the
it
looks
like
if
you,
I
guess,
created
more
questions
and
then
we
got
answers
today.
So
you
know,
if
you
will,
maybe
the
next
meeting
we'll
we'll
discuss
some
of
those
you
know
one-time
payments
or
some
of
those
options
that
co-chair
the
plus
he
talked
about
for
those
lower
income-
I
guess
retirees
and
and
just
some
different
options,
but
you
know
I
guess
you
know
we
have
a.
A
We
feel
an
obligation
to
the
retirees
and
we
also
have
an
obligation
to
a
retirement
fund.
That's
only
14
funded,
so
you
know
you
kind
of
get
pulled
in
two
directions,
but
I
guess
I
put
the
actuary
on
the
spot,
danny
and
and
what
you
have
a
you
have
a
fund
that
you
use
the
funds
to
pay
down
the
unfunded
liability
or
use
the
funds
to
pay
a
cola.
You
have
fiduciary
duty
also,
so
your
your
your
your
opinion
so.
E
In
our
opinion,
what
we've
told
kppa
is
it's:
it's
a
it's
a
policy
matter
regarding
on
the
cola
and
whether
or
not
to
give
one
or
what
that
looks
like
our
concern
and
our
opinion
will
be
on
to
make
sure
it's
appropriately
funded
and
when
I
say
appropriately
funded
if
you're,
if
you're
going
to
do
a
one.
If
you
come
to
the
conclusion
you're
going
to
do
a
one-time
payment,
you
need
to
pay
for
it
immediately,
don't
don't
give
a
benefit,
increase
and
then
decide
to
pay
for
it
over
the
next
20
years.
E
There's
a
cash
flow
mismatch.
That's
the
part
that
would
be
concerning
to
us,
but
a
line
align
the
the
the
benefit
provided.
It
needs
to
be
funded
for
in
advance.
That's
the
that's
the
risk.
Any
time
when
you
have
do,
I
have
hot
colas
is
how
are
we
gonna?
How
do
we
appropriately
pay
for
it
because
they're
not
being
pre-funded
in
and
so
that's
where
we
really
liken
the
statute
on
that
second
bullet.
If
the
general
assembly
it
takes
action
now
that
it's
it's
fully
funded.
D
Yeah,
I
would
say
also
yeah,
I'm
a
fiduciary
for
the
plan.
I,
if,
if
we
get
the
full
arc
and
the
general
assembly
decides
they
want
to
spend
another
dollar
on
colas,
I
think
that's,
that's
your
policy,
that's,
okay!
What
I
don't
want
to
do
is
have
you
fund
the
cola
taking
a
dollar
out
of
the
ark?
That's
what
I
don't
want
to
take.
A
Well,
very
good
discussion,
mr
eager,
you
have
a
homework
assignment.
Mr
mr
totten,
mr
carroll,
we
will
continue
this
discussion.
I
think
it's
very
productive
still
don't
have
any
answers
but,
like
I
said,
we
continue
to
look
into
this
situation
so
we
have
to.
We
have
to
figure
out,
we
have
to
remember,
we
have
a
fund,
that's
14
funded
and
that's
that's
and,
on
the
other
hand,
the
concern
for
our
retirees.
So
it's
a
delicate
balance
there.
So
thank
you
all
seeing
no
further
questions
and
no
that's
can
conclude.