►
From YouTube: 2/4/2021 - Assembly Committee on Government Affairs
Description
For agenda and additional meeting information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature.
The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process.
All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
A
The
assembly
committee
on
government
affairs
will
come
to
order.
Madam
secretary,
please
call
roll.
E
F
G
E
G
E
A
President,
thank
you,
and
I
apologize
for
saying
madam
secretary,
I'm
so
accustomed
to
doing
that.
Thank
you
all.
So
I
want
to
remind
members
of
to
please
mute
your
microphones,
if
you're,
not
speaking,
so
that
we
don't
get
any
feedback,
and
I
want
to
remind
you
to
please
keep
your
your
cameras
on
at
all
times.
A
I
want
to
remind
those
following
us
virtually
that
a
lot
of
us
have
a
very
unique
setup
right
now
during
this
virtual
meeting,
and
sometimes
some
of
us
have
things
in
front
of
us
that
we're
looking
at
actual
physical
copies,
we
have
monitors
to
our
left
and
right,
and
so
you
may
see
us
looking
in
different
directions
and
it
may
give
the
appearance
that
we're
not
paying
attention.
But
in
fact
we
are
it's
just
the
type
of
setup
we
have
is
just
unique
to
every
different
office.
A
The
other
thing
I
wanted
to
remind
members
of
the
audience,
those
of
you
wishing
to
participate,
those
of
you
who
submit
items
and
writing
to
us.
We
appreciate
you
doing
that,
and
we
encourage
you
to
continue
to
do
that.
We
ask,
however,
that
you
please
submit
it
by
no
later
than
noon
a
day
prior
that
allows
our
team
ample
time
to
be
able
to
upload
it.
A
So
when
you
do
submit
something,
we'll
always
make
the
effort
to
make
sure
that
we
can
put
it
up
so
that
everybody
can
see
it
but
worst
case
scenario,
we'll
simply
post
it
for
the
following
day
on
public
comment
that
way
it
gets
posted,
but
that
we
also
don't
put
our
team
in
a
weird
situation
where,
unfortunately,
they
can't
do
it
because
they
got
it
in
such
short
notice.
A
A
If,
for
those
of
you
who
have
the
agenda,
we
have
two
presentations
scheduled
for
today
from
the
public
employees,
retirement
system
and
the
public
employees
benefits
program
at
this
time.
If
I
could
have
broadcasting
we'll
go
ahead
and
open
it
up
for
our
first
presentation
for
today
from
public
employees,
retirement
system.
Thank.
A
A
Both
if
you
are
speaking
just
wanted
to
notify
you
that
well,
I
don't
believe
we're
getting
sound
that
are
in
there
we
go.
Thank
you.
C
I
apologize
good
morning,
mr
chairman
members
of
the
committee,
I'm
tina
liss,
I'm
the
executive
officer
of
the
public
employees.
Retirement
system
to
my
right
is
steve
edmondson.
He
is
the
investment
officer
of
the
system.
We
will
both
be
presenting
to
you.
I
will
do
the
first
part
of
the
presentation.
Mr
edmondson
will
then
finish
off
the
presentation
with
the
investment
program
and
unless
there's
any
questions
before
we
get
started,
we
will
go
straight
to
our
powerpoint
presentation.
C
C
C
The
first
slide
basically
answers
the
question:
what
is
nevada
purse?
First
and
foremost,
we
are
constitutionally
created
trust
fund.
We
are
created
through
the
nevada
constitution,
which
we
will
cover
in
the
next
couple
of
slides,
to
provide
retirement
benefits
to
state
and
local
government
employees
in
the
state
of
nevada.
We
are
multiple
employer,
which
means
that
we
cover
virtually
every
public
employer
in
the
state
of
nevada
from
the
school
districts
to
the
state,
the
cities,
the
counties,
your
general
improvement
districts,
pretty
much
everyone
that
is
employed,
state
or
local
government
program
is
in
our
system.
C
So
it
is
a
lifetime
benefit
for
the
member
once
they
retire,
so
that
benefit
is
in
place
for,
however
long
they
live
in
retirement,
so
it's
a
benefit
that
the
employee
cannot
outlive.
Now
the
benefits
are
based
on
a
statutory
formula.
So
that
means
that
the
benefit
structure
is
set
by
the
legislature,
and
that
is
in
chapter
286.
C
They
are
what
we
would
call
the
plan
sponsor,
so
the
legislature
tells
the
system
what
benefits
to
administer,
and
then
the
system
is
responsible
for
funding
those
benefits,
paying
those
benefits
out
and
making
sure
that
all
our
members
and
retirees
have
that
secure
retirement
for
when
they
can
no
longer
work.
One
of
the
things
that's
really
important
to
keep
in
mind
about
nevada
pers
is
that
we
are
in
place
of
social
security
and
an
employer-sponsored
retirement
benefit.
C
Our
employees
do
not
participate
in
social
security,
so
that
means
that
a
career
employee,
most
likely
will
not
have
a
social
security
benefit
when
they
retire.
So
we're
designed
to
really
be
two
different
programs,
we're
in
place
of
social
security
and
we
are
in
the
the
employer,
sponsored
retirement
benefits.
C
You
may
have
certain
employees
that,
from
prior
service,
have
some
social
security
benefits.
I
also
would
note
that
the
federal
government
does
offset
social
security
benefits
against
our
benefit.
So,
even
if
our
employees
do
have
qualify
for
some
social
security
benefit,
it
likely
will
be
reduced
by
social
security.
C
Retirement
system
is
segregated
and
can
never
be
used
for
any
other
purpose.
So
the
money
in
the
system
is
held
for
our
members
and
beneficiaries
can
never
be
used
for
any
other
purpose.
That
is
also
a
provision
in
the
internal
revenue
code
as
well
that
the
money
at
purse
can
only
be
used
for
the
exclusive
benefit
of
our
members
and
retirees
in
1996.
C
We
do
have
an
interim
retirement
and
benefits
committee
of
the
legislature
that
we
report
to
typically
twice
during
each
interim
session,
but
otherwise
we
are
set
up
to
be
somewhat
independent.
We
are
exempt
from
the
budget
act
except
for
certain
provisions,
so,
for
instance,
our
budget
goes
to
the
legislature
for
approval,
but
it
does
not
go
through
executive
branch
for
approval.
It
goes
to
the
executive
branch
for
information
only.
C
Next,
I
just
want
to
cover
the
mission
that
the
legislature
has
given
us.
This
mission
has
been
in
place
virtually
unchanged
since
we
were
created
in
1947
and
we
were
created
in
1947
because
of
the
social
security
issue
and
the
fact
that
employees,
public
employees
in
the
state
of
nevada
virtually
had
no
retirement
program
and
that
created
an
instance
of
what
they
called
in
the
1940s
of
hidden
pensioners,
which
was
public
employees
who
were
unable
to
retire
because
of
the
lack
of
social
security
and
the
lack
of
a
retirement
program.
C
The
second
portion
of
the
mission
is
to
encourage
those
workers
to
enter
into
and
remain
in
government
service
for
such
periods
of
time
to
give
the
public
employers
in
the
state
of
nevada
the
full
benefit
of
their
training
and
experience.
This
is
really
an
important
tool
for
our
employers
to
attract
and
retain
good
employees.
C
The
third
portion
of
this
mission
is
to
provide
an
orderly
method
of
promoting
and
maintaining
a
high
level
service
to
the
public
through
an
equitable
separation
procedure
available
to
employees
at
retirement
or
upon
becoming
disabled,
and
that's
where
we
want
to
make
sure
that
you
can
have
that
orderly
transition.
You
can
have
the
promotion
up
in
the
ranks
of
your
newer
employees
as
well,
by
being
able
to
retire
out
those
who,
by
age
or
disability,
it
is
in
their
best
interest
to
then
be
able
to
retire.
C
The
next
slide
shows
you
really,
the
multiple
employer
cost
sharing
structure
of
our
system.
On
the
right
hand,
side
you
can
see.
We
have
eleven
one
hundred
and
eleven
thousand
eight
hundred
fifteen
active
members,
so
those
are
all
the
active
employees
that
are
contributing
to
the
retirement
system
at
this
time.
C
Well,
actually,
as
of
june
30
of
2020.,
so
our
employees
pay
one-half
of
the
contribution
rate
to
the
system,
either
through
a
direct
deduction
of
from
their
paycheck
of
half
the
contribution
rate
or
by
a
salary
reduction
or
in
lieu
of
a
pay
increase
that
they're
foregoing.
So
our
employees
pay
half
so
half
of
that
circuit,
you
can
see,
is
the
employee's
share
of
the
contribution.
C
The
other
half
represents
our
employers.
We
have
approximately
215
public
employers
that
participate
in
our
system.
You
can
see
the
largest
of
those
employers
is
the
clark
county
school
district
and
they
so
that
kind
of
represents
their
their
piece
of
the
prior.
Their
share
of
our
cost-sharing
structure,
the
next
largest,
is
the
state
of
nevada
that
is
minus
the
university
system,
who
reports
to
us
separately,
so
the
second
largest
employer
stayed
in
nevada.
C
The
third
largest
employer
is
clark
county,
then
washa
county
school
district,
then
las
vega,
las
vegas
metropolitan
police
department
and
then
you'll
see
that
slice
for
the
remaining
210
public
employers
have
the
remaining
membership
of
our
system.
So
that
kind
of
shows
you
how
our
membership
is
broken
down
and
gives
you
a
little
bit
of
the
flavor
as
to
why
the
legislature
created
us
to
be
somewhat
independent
of
the
state
executive
branch,
because,
of
course
we
serve
all
those
levels
of
government.
C
C
The
regular
fund,
as
of
june
30
2020,
had
98
228
members
that
was
up
from
96
072
members
from
the
prior
year
june,
30
2019,
you
can
see
the
average
age
is
45.7
which
did
not
change
from
the
prior
year.
The
average
years
of
service
was
9.7,
which
also
did
not
change
from
the
prior
year.
That
accounts
a
little
bit
for
people
retiring
and
new
people
coming
in
that
average
age
just
didn't
change.
Over
the
last
year,
the
average
annual
salary
changed
from
52
000
to
approximately
53
000
from
2019
to
2020..
C
This
is
the
salary
that
the
our
average
salary
from
the
regular
fund,
and
this
includes
their
retire,
the
their
retirement
contribution.
So
this
is
before
their
retirement
contributions
have
been
deducted.
C
The
next
slide
shows
our
police
fire
membership,
so
the
police
fire
fund
was
created
for
the
purpose
of
ensuring
that
the
public
has
a
youthful
and
vigorous
front-line
public
safety
workforce
to
protect
the
public
from
physical
harm.
So,
to
be
clear,
the
reason
for
the
police
fire
fund
is
the
benefit
to
the
public
of
having
that
youthful
and
vigorous
front-line
public
safety
force.
Sometimes
it
gets
confused
that
the
police
fire
fund
was
created
to
reward
our
police
by
our
members
for
hazardous
duty,
but
that
actually
is
not
the
reason.
C
The
legislature
created
the
system,
the
separation
for
the
police
fire
fund.
The
main
difference
for
the
police
fire
fund
is
the
early
retirement
feature
for
the
police
fire
folks,
and
that
is
again
so
that
we
can
maintain
the
more
youthful
and
vigorous
frontline
public
safety
force
so
because
of
their
early
retirement
feature
when
they.
Obviously,
when
members
retire
earlier,
we
are
tending
to
pay
their
benefits
for
longer
periods
of
time,
which
makes
their
benefit
structure
a
little
bit
more
expensive
than
the
regular
fund,
and
that
is
reflected
in
their
contribution
rates.
C
You
will
also
see
that
it's
a
much
smaller
piece
of
the
retirement
system,
this
police
fireside
as
of
june
30
2020.
It
had
13
587
members,
and
you
can
also
see
that
the
purpose
of
the
fund,
that
being
the
the
more
youthful
workforce
in
the
average
age
of
39.5
for
the
police
fire
fund,
which
actually
is
a
little
bit
down
from
39.8
june
30
of
2019,
the
average
years
of
service,
also
down
a
little
bit
from
2019.
C
You
will
see
the
average
annual
salary
in
the
police
fire
fund
is
significantly
higher
than
the
regular
fund,
and
that
would
be
where
you
would
see
the
reward
in
essence
or
compensation.
If
you
will
for
the
more
hazardous
duty
that
the
police
fire
members
may
have.
So
that's
where
that
you
see
the
differences
and
because
obviously
they
have
the
higher
salary,
you
will
tend
to
see
higher
benefits
in
the
police
fire
side,
because
our
benefits
are
based
on
years
of
service
and
the
members
average
compensation
during
their
working
career.
C
C
On
account
of
the
police
fire
fund,
we
have
broken
it
by
the
different
categories
that
we
pay.
We
have
service
retirees,
which
is
the
lion's
share
of
the
liabilities
of
the
system,
so
the
service
retirees
would
be
those
that
you
would
typically
think
of
coming
out
of
our
system.
They
work
their
career,
they
meet
their
requirements
to
retire
and
they
retire
and
take
that
service
retirement
you
can
see
in
the
regular
fund
that
average
benefit
is
monthly
3136.
C
We
also
have
a
disability
program
where
members
can
draw
their
benefits
before
reaching
the
required
age
for
service
retirement
if
they
meet
the
requirements
for
a
disability
retirement.
That
is
an
earned
benefit.
So
there
is
no
floor
benefit
or
or
benefit
that
they
attain
on
account
of
being
disabled.
Their
benefit
is
calculated
exactly
the
same,
which
means
it
is
whatever
they
earn.
It
just
allows
them
because
of
that
disability
to
collect
it
at
an
earlier
age.
You
can
see
we
have
2467
disability
retirees
in
the
regular
fund.
C
The
beneficiary
category
is
where
our
service,
retirees
or
disability
retirees
can
choose
to
take
a
reduced
benefit,
so
they
pay
for
their
own
beneficiary
coverage.
They
can
take
a
reduced
benefit
and
then,
when
they
pass
away,
they
can
name
one
person
to
cover
for
the
remainder
of
that
person's
life.
You
can
see
we
have
about
4
500
beneficiaries
that
we're
paying
from
the
regular
fund
and
survivors
or
those
eligible
survivors
of
public
employees
who
have
passed
away
prior
to
retirement.
C
So
on
the
police
fire
side,
you
can
see
the
same
categories.
You
can
see
that
the
police
fire
benefits
tend
to
be
somewhat
higher.
That's
pretty
much
a
function
of
their
higher
salaries
and
also
the
police
fire
do
tend
to
have
a
little
bit
more
service
credit
than
the
average
member
at
time
of
retirement.
C
So
the
next
slide
shows
a
little
bit
about
how
we
fund
the
benefits.
The
benefits,
as
we
noted,
are
lifetime
benefits
based
on
a
member's
service,
credit,
average
compensation
and
age
at
retirement.
So
the
cost
of
the
benefit
is
some
that,
ultimately,
that
we
will
have
to
pay.
We
don't
know
what
that's
going
to
be,
because
we
don't
know
how
long
each
individual
person
is
going
to
live.
We
don't
know
precisely
what
their
average
compensation
or
their
salary
will
be
at
time
of
retirement.
C
So
we
are
funding
a
benefit
really
that
relies
on
assumptions
assumptions
as
to
how
long
people
will
live,
how,
when
people
will
retire,
how
much
service
credit
they
will
have
when
they
retire,
what
their
salary
is
when
they
retire.
So
we
make
a
lot
of
assumptions
to
determine
what
those
benefit
costs
are,
but
the
benefit
costs
are
dependent
on
the
plan
design.
C
So
the
plan
design
is
what
determines
ultimately
what
those
benefits
cost
along
with
those
other
features
as
like,
as
in
you
know
how
long
our
people
will
live
and
that
sort
of
thing,
so
the
benefit
design
itself
creates
what
the
cost
will
be
and
that
is
set
by
the
legislature.
The
legislature
does
set
what
those
benefits
are
based
on
our
mission.
So
what
will
be
that
reasonable
base
income
for
our
members
to
live
comfortably
in
retirement?
C
So
when
we
make
those
estimates
of
what
those
benefit
costs
will
be,
we
then
have
two
ways
that
we
fund
that
benefit,
so
we
have
contributions,
so
employees
and
employers
pre-fund
those
benefits
so
day,
one
when
a
member
starts
working.
They
and
their
employer
make
contributions
to
us.
Based
on
what
our
actuary
says,
we
will
need
to
fund
their
benefit
out
into
the
future,
so
we
have
those
contributions
and
then
we
take
those
contributions
and
mr
edmonson,
our
investment
officer,
has
established
the
investment
program
that
will
then
invest
those
contributions.
C
The
majority
of
the
benefits
that
we
paid
that
we
pay
come
from
the
investment
return
itself,
the
contributions
kind
of
prime
that,
but
the
investment
return
is
where
the
majority
of
the
benefits
will
come
from
now
on.
The
next
page,
we'll
show
you
just
briefly:
our
funded
ratio
and
the
funded
ratio
basically
tells
you
how
much
of
assets
do
we
have
on
hand
today
to
pay
those
benefits
that
we
will
owe
out
into
the
future?
This
is
one
measure
of
the
health
and
retirement
system.
There
are
many
other
measures.
C
What's
important
is
to
look
at
the
trends
and
also
to
keep
in
mind
is
this
is
for
benefits
that
we
don't
owe
necessarily
today,
tomorrow
or
the
next
day,
but
these
are
benefits
that
we
owe
out
decades
from
now
to
all
our
members
that
are
currently
employed
and
our
retirees
that
are
retired
and
you
can
see
we've
given
you
the
values
of
what
our
assets
are
as
compared
to
our
long-term
estimated
liabilities
from
2011
to
2020,
and
what
you
can
see
generally,
is
the
trend
going
up,
and
so
we,
the
the
trend
of
our
funded
ratio,
is
really
a
good
news
in
the
kind
of
slow
and
steady
wins
the
race
that
we
don't
want
to
see
big
fluctuations
on
the
funded
ratio
up
or
down,
because
then
that
really
affects
our
members
and
employers
as
to
how
the
contributions
are
being
made.
C
So
this
is
really
a
good
news
story
in
the
fact
that
we're
making
that
slow
and
steady
progress
on
the
funding
for
the
future
benefits
to
all
of
our
members
and
retirees
and
the
last
part
I'm
going
to
talk
about
before
I
turn
it
over
to
mr
edmondson
is
just
to
show
you
a
representation
of
the
growth
of
the
assets
versus
the
growth
of
what
we
call
the
unfunded
liability.
That
is
the
amount
that
we're
paying
on
to
make
sure
we
have
those
assets
on
hand
to
pay
the
long-term
liabilities.
C
So
because
of
that
pre-funding,
we
have
the
money
to
pay
out
those
benefits
and
our
assets
because
of
the
investment
return,
the
contributions
that
are
religiously
paid
by
both
our
employers
and
our
employees.
The
assets
are
growing
and
you
can
see
the
unfunded
liability
bar
down.
There
is
fairly
steady
and
not
really
growing,
quite
at
the
same
rate
as
the
assets,
so
that
just
kind
of
gives
you
the
visual
representation
of
the
assets
versus
the
unfunded
liability,
and
with
that
I
will
turn
it
over
to
mr
edmondson
to
talk
about
our
investment
strategy.
D
Good
morning,
everyone
again,
my
name
is
steve
edmundson,
I'm
the
investment
officer
of
nevada,
pers
and
I'm
jumping
in
at
this
point
of
the
presentation
to
provide
a
summary
level
overview
of
the
investment
program
at
nevada
pers,
including
investment
return
data
through
the
most
recent
fiscal
year
end
and
a
summary
of
nevada
pers
investment
strategy
which
is
depicted
on
the
pie
chart
of
the
provided
material.
D
Nevada's
investment
program
was
46.6
billion
dollars
in
assets
as
of
june
30,
2020
and
nevada.
Pers
investment
program
is
fairly
well
known
throughout
the
institutional
investment
world
as
being
the
simple
fund,
and
when
I
say
simple,
I
mean
that
we
nevada,
pers
investment
structure
is
more
of
a
traditional
approach
over
the
last
couple
decades
and
really
more
over
the
last
10
15
years,
institutional
investment
portfolios
and
endowments
public
pension
funds
have
grown
increasingly
complex
and
nevada.
D
Pers
approach,
we've
actually
kind
of
distilled
the
program
down
to
its
most
simple
version
that
we
have
to
today,
which
really
emphasizes
an
allocation
to
high
quality
large
cap
developed
market
in
u.s,
united
states
large
capitalization
stocks.
D
Our
bond
allocation
is
100
percent
us
government
treasury
bonds,
which
is
designed
to
offset
the
volatility
that's
created
by
are
affiliated
with
owning
equity,
and
then
we
do
have
a
12
target
allocation
of
private
market
assets
and
in
that
allocation
is
a
six
percent
dedicated
or
six
percent
target
allocation
of
private
real
estate
and
a
six
percent
target
allocation
to
private
equity.
D
Now,
if
you
were
going
to
look
at
say
the
median
or
the
average
public
pension
fund
or
a
university
endowment
investment
portfolio,
and
we
put
put
their
pipe
a
similar
pie
chart
up
on
on
the
screen,
what
you
would
see
is
a
pie
chart
with
a
lot
more
colors
and
you'd,
see
things
like
hedge
funds,
commodities,
portable
alpha,
high
yield,
bonds,
etc,
a
lot
more
complication,
and
so
how
did
we
get
to
this
this?
This
simple
version
that
we
employ
here
today
at
nevada
purse.
D
Well,
first
and
foremost,
as
we
built
this
program
out,
we
looked
at
the
evidence
and
ultimately,
a
history
told
us
that
we
could
build
an
investment
portfolio
in
a
traditional
manner,
with
a
very
simple
approach
that
could
be
ultimately
be
competitive
over
time,
and
in
addition
to
that,
you
know
we
sat
down
and
and
and
decided
our
you
know.
D
What
is
our
is
our
core
competency
here
at
nevada
pers,
and
where
do
we
think
that
we
have
a
competitive
advantage
relative
to
the
rest
of
the
universe
of
institutional
investors
out
there,
and
ultimately,
what
we
determined
was
that
we
wanted
to
focus
on
the
things
that
we
knew
that
we
have
control
over.
D
Specifically,
we
can
be
disciplined.
We
can
spend
a
lot
of
time
focusing
on
how
we
respond
to
markets,
as
rather
than
how
we
are
going
to
predict
markets.
We
didn't
think
that
we
necessarily
had
a
specific
advantage
in
our
our
ability
to
predict
the
future.
However,
we
do
do
know
that
we
have
the
ability
to
be
disciplined
and
to
be
patient,
and
in
addition
to
that,
one
of
the
things
that
we
can
we
know
we
have
control
over
are
the
ultimately
the
costs
of
the
program.
D
So
we
spend
a
lot
of
time
trying
to
keep
our
investment
costs
as
low
as
possible,
and
the
simple
portfolio
design
that
we
put
together
helps
facilitate
that
process.
We're
100
indexed
across
all
public
markets,
which
is
unique
in
the
industry
and
by
eliminating
some
of
the
more
complex
and
esoteric
strategies
available
to
investors
in
the
marketplace
were
able
to
keep
our
fees
amongst
the
lowest
in
the
industry.
D
I
don't
have
raw
data.
That
specifically
says
nevada
purge
is
the
lowest
fee
investment
program
in
the
public
fund
universe.
However,
I
do
know
that
we
are
among
the
lowest
and
possibly
the
lowest
in
the
industry.
Nevada
pers
annual
investment
costs
are
12
basis.
Points
of
total
fund
assets.
That's
relative
to
the
median
large
public
pension
fund,
which
fees
are
are,
are
roughly
53
basis
points
so
every
year.
D
The
way
that
we
see
it
is
we
start
the
year
with
roughly
a
40
basis,
point
advantage
simply
by
keeping
our
costs
under
control
now
to
put
that
into
perspective.
Pers
investment
program
ended
the
the
last
fiscal
year
with
46
a
little
over
46
and
a
half
billion
dollars
in
assets,
and
that
40
basis
point
fee
advantage
at
at
that
asset
level
equates
to
approximately
190
million
dollars
a
year
in
fee
savings
over
the
median
public
pension
fund.
D
If
you
compound
193
million
dollars
over
the
course
of
the
decade
at
seven
and
a
half
percent,
that's
a
little
over
two
and
a
half
billion
dollars
over
the
course
of
a
decade
simply
in
in
fee
savings.
We
want
every
dollar
available
to
compound
investment
returns
for
the
benefit
of
our
members
and
beneficiaries,
rather
than
paying
out
those
assets
in
fees.
D
The
next
page
depicts
three
other
funds
which
we're
also
responsible
for,
in
addition
to
the
large
pers
portfolio,
we
also
manage
three
additional
portfolios,
namely
the
legislators
investment
fund,
which,
as
of
june
30
2020,
was
a
little
over
four
and
a
half
million
dollars
in
assets.
D
Those
assets
are
invested
to
fund
other
post
employment
benefits,
health,
health
benefits,
post-retirement
for
participating
entities,
and
that
fund
has
grown
to
603
603.8
million
dollars
as
of
june
30
2020..
D
Now,
while
the
pers
fund
is,
we
employ
the
simple
approach
of
the
larger
purse
portfolio.
These
are
really
the
the
the
most
distilled
down
version
of
of
these.
The
simple
approach
in
that
they
utilize
a
hundred
percent
public
market
assets.
They
don't
employ
private
market
assets
like
we
do
in
the
nevada
proves
portfolio
simply
because
their
size
doesn't
facilitate
the
ability
to
invest
in
private,
real
estate
and
private
equity
in
the
manner
that
we
do
at
within
the
pers
portfolio.
D
An
asset
mix
which
is
designed
to
mimic
the
risk
and
return
profile
of
the
larger
pers
fund
and
these
smaller
portfolios
over
time
have
performed
roughly
in
line
with
nevada
pers
over
extended
time
periods.
The
return
of
these
smaller
portfolios
are
within
10
basis
points
of
the
larger
pers
portfolio.
D
They
exhibit
a
little
bit
higher
volatility.
A
little
bit
higher
realized
standard
deviation
because
they
don't
have
the
benefit
of
those
private
market
assets.
However,
over
extended
time
periods,
returns
have
been
roughly
in
line,
so
it's
sort
of
a
proof
statement
to
some
extent
that,
with
a
with
a
relatively
simple
mix
of
assets,
we
can
put
together
an
investment
portfolio
that
will
deliver
returns
in
line
with
a
much
larger
program.
D
The
next
page,
titled
pers
investment
returns,
depict
nevada,
pers
investment
results
for
various
time
periods
ended
june,
30
2020.,
the
furthest
left
column,
represents
nevada,
purr's
return
through
the
most
recent
fiscal
year
ended
june.
30
2020.
D
nevada
pers
had
a
return
of
7.2,
which
we
were
very
pleased
with.
It
was
an
extraordinarily
volatile
year
in
financial
markets
for
obvious
reasons,
and
so
it
ended
up
being
actually
a
relatively
strong
year
due
to
the
sharp
recovery
in
stocks
from
march
through
june,
and
then
over
extended
time
periods,
you'll
see,
nevada,
pers
return,
8.1
percent
annualized
for
three
years,
7.6
percent
annualized
over
the
last
five
years,
nine
and
a
half
percent.
Over
the
last
decade.
D
D
An
additional
kind
of
touchstone
that
you'll
see
on
the
next
page
as
to,
I
think,
the
effectiveness
of
our
simple
approach.
Our
nevada
pers
returns
relative
to
the
universe
of
large
other
large
public
pension
funds,
and
what
you'll
see
on
this
page
is
sort
of
a
proof
statement
that
nevada's,
simple
approach
is
not
only
cost
effective,
but
it
can
also
be
and
has
proven
to
be
effective
from
a
return
standpoint
as
well.
D
D
There
was
a
fairly
wide
dispersion
in
returns
last
year.
Just
I
think
that
was
primarily
due
to
the
extraordinary
volatility
experienced
over
that
12-month
period
over
longer
time
periods,
which
are
really
more
important
in
the
single
time
period,
nevada,
pers
returns
can
have
proven
to
be
highly
competitive.
D
With
the
simple
approach
relative
to
the
median
fund,
the
vatipur's
return
over
the
last
three
years
is
the
is
the
best
return
in
the
industry.
Second
percentile
over
the
last
five
years:
seventh
percentile
over
the
last
seventh
eighth
percentile
over
the
last
decade,
12th
percentile
over
the
last
15
years,
sixth
percentile
over
the
last
20
and
in
the
top
quartile
of
large
public
funds
since
inception.
So
over
those
longer
time
periods,
nevada,
pers
returns
have
proven
to
be
highly
competitive.
D
Now
I'll
I'll
mention
one
caveat
when
I'm
I'm
talking
about
relative
returns
compared
to
the
universe
of
the
universe
of
public
funds,
while
nevada
pro's
returns
have
have
have
proven
to
be
resilient
over
longer
time
horizons
in
any
given
year.
We
expect
to
see
our
returns
kind
of
bump
around
in
that
database.
D
For
instance,
over
the
last
decade
or
the
last
20
years.
Nevada
pers
is
in
the
top
sixth
percentile
of
large
public
pension
fund
investment
programs.
However,
within
that
same
20-year
time
period,
nevada,
purr's
return
was
in
the
bottom
quartile
or
worse
five
different
times.
So,
roughly
a
quarter
of
the
time
in
individual
years,
we
can
expect
to
see
nevada
purrs
towards
the
bottom
of
the
database,
and
that
is
to
be
expected.
You
know
if
we're
going
to
design
an
investment
program,
that's
different
than
everybody
else.
D
We
know
that
there's
going
to
be
time
periods
when
nevada,
pers
returns,
look
different
and
sometimes
we'll
be
towards
in
single
years
and
over
short
and
medium
time
periods
we'll
be
towards
the
bottom
of
that
database.
So,
if
I'm
presenting
before
you
in
a
couple
years
and
and
and
we're
closer
to
the
bottom
over
over
a
a
a
one
or
a
two
year
period,
which
I
don't
know
we
will
be,
but
if,
if
that
does
happen,
that's
one
of
those
things
that
we
expect
to
happen
roughly
a
quarter
of
the
time.
D
However,
we
do
continue
to
believe
that
nevada
per
simple
low-cost
approach
will
continue
to
be
effective
and
competitive
relative
to
the
more
complicated
portfolios
in
the
universe
over
extended
time
periods.
We
just
expect
to
see
a
little
bit
of
volatility
within
within
that
universe,
over
shorter
time
periods
that
same
volatility
and
returns
relative
to
the
public
fund
universe.
D
We
also
expect
to
see
on
an
absolute
basis
as
well
and
and
and
what
the
chart
that
you
see
on
this
page-
depicts
nevada,
pers
fiscal
year
returns
for
each
of
the
last
since
1985
on
an
annual
basis
and
the
red
line
across
the
middle
of
the
page,
depicts
pert
nevada
per
seven
and
a
half
percent
long-term
investment
return
assumption,
and
it's
absolutely
critical
to
always
remember
that
that
seven
and
a
half
percent
return
assumption
is
a
long-term
assumption.
D
It
is
not
an
assumption
that
we
expect
to
hit
each
and
every
single
year.
It
is
not
an
assumption
that
we
expect
to
hit
even
over
medium
time
periods
as
well.
It's
a
long-term
assumption,
a
multi-decade
assumption
over
shorter
time
periods.
We
expect
to
see
a
pretty
wide
dispersion
around
that
red
line
and
that's
exactly
what
we've
seen
happen
there's
been
years
where
we've
been
well
below
it.
D
Obviously,
during
the
financial
crisis
you
can
see
2008
and
2009
were
very
difficult
years,
a
couple
other
years
of
negative
returns
in
the
early
2000s
associated
with
the
the
tech
bubble
collapse,
and
we
expect
to
see
this
pattern
of
returns
continue
into
the
future.
There'll
be
years
where
we're
both
well
above
and
below
that
red
line
and-
and
we
expect
to
see
that
continue
out
into
the
future
as
well.
We
know
for
a
fact
and
and
every
long-term
investor,
whether
you're,
a
retail
investor,
an
individual
investor
or
a
big
institutional
investor
like
nevada
purse.
D
We
all
need
to
expect
that
we're
going
to
encounter
all
sorts
of
periods
and
financial
markets,
both
good
and
bad,
and
the
important
thing
to
remember
is
and
what
what
I
think
we've
been
particularly
good
of
good
at
here
at
the
retirement
system,
is
when
we're.
When
we
run
into
those
tough
spots
like
we
did
in
08
and
09
and
and
2001
and
2002,
that
we
don't
alter
course,
and
we
continue
to
implement
what
has
been
an
effective
program.
D
A
So
thank
you
again
both
for
the
presentation
with
that.
I'm
gonna
open
up
for
questions
and
if
we
could,
please
start
with
assemblywoman
thomas,
please.
F
Hey,
thank
you
so
much,
mr
chu
and
I
want
to
just
thank
miss
lis
and
I
believe
it
was
mr
goodman.
Am
I
correct,
I
hope
so
anyway
for
your
presentation.
It
would
sound
very
informative.
I
just
have
a
question
about
slide:
seven
and
eight
about
the
police
and
fire
fund.
I'm
not
understanding
why
your
assessment
of
the
that
fund
is
is
combined.
F
C
Yeah,
so
we
have
the
police
fire
fund
so
that
the
police
and
fire
because
of
the
the
physical
demands
of
their
job,
can
retire
at
a
younger
age,
so
they
do
tend
to
retire
at
a
younger
age.
They
are
combined
with
the
entire
fund.
So,
for
instance,
we
have
one
full
trust
fund
and
assets.
We
we
do
account
for
the
assets
separately,
so
we
can
account
for
the
cost
separately,
but
it
is
one
trust
fund
that
is
available
to
to
pay
for
both
the
benefits
on
the
police,
fire
side
and
the
regular
side.
C
At
the
moment,
we
are
on
the
same
mortality
table
for
regular
and
police
fire,
which
is
telling
us
at
the
moment
on
average,
our
regular
and
police
fire
have
about
the
same
longevity,
so
the
police
fire
they
just
they
start
tend
to
start
younger.
They
tend
to
retire
younger,
but
they
tend
to
live
to
about
the
same
age.
I'm
not
sure
if
that
really
gets
to
your
question
or
not,
but
I'd
be
happy
to
follow
up.
F
Thank
you
well
part
of
the
question.
Is
you
say
the
age
of
this
of
police
and
fire
starting
at
a
younger
age
and
I'm
assuming
retiring
at
a
younger
age
and
injuries
that
would
be
assessed
to
them
again?
You
know
just
because
you
know
the
police,
when
you
say
an
early
age.
What
is
that
age
fire?
F
What
is
that
age
retirement?
What
is
the
retirement
age?
Is
the
longevity
for
fire
longer
than
police?
Is
there
a
tendency?
Is
there
a
trend
of
of
retiring
earlier
in
the
police
department
relative
to
the
fire
department?
F
So
you
know
just
so
that
I
would
be
able
to
get
a
clearer
understanding
of
how
much
money
that
each
you
know
the
fire
and
or
police
attributes
to
that
would
give
me
a
clearer
understanding
of
of,
I
believe,
a
true
assessment
of
the
on
average,
the
annual
how
they
actually
are
assessed
in
purse,
because
you
know
to
average
out
an
annual
salary
for
police
and
fire.
When
you
know
one
makes
more
money
than
the
other
to
average
out
79
almost
80
000.
F
I
don't
think
that
that's
a
true
assessment.
Thank
you.
C
So
tina
lists
for
the
record
assemblywoman
to
get
hopefully
a
little
closer
to
your
question
of
the
13
000
about
13
587
members.
As
of
june
30,
approximately
I
would
say
about
2500
of
those
are
firefighters.
The
remaining
is
police
officers,
so
the
lion's
share
in
that
fund
is
going
to
be
police.
About.
2500
are
going
to
be
about
firefighters.
C
They
have
the
same
benefit
provisions
they
typically
their
retire.
Their
eligibility
for
retirement
is
going
to
be
age
50
with
at
least
20
years
of
service.
That's,
I
think,
your
most
common
eligibility
so
you're
looking
at
retirement
at
about
age
50,
possibly
not
everyone
retires.
When
they're
eligible
to
some
people
will
retire
a
little
bit
farther
because
we
pay
them
combined
rate.
We
do
not
tend
to
break
out
the
police
fire.
F
Thank
you
so
much.
I
really
do
appreciate
your
time
both
of
your
times.
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
A
E
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
want
to
also
thank
both
of
our
presenters
for
being
with
us
here
this
morning.
A
question
for
I
guess
either
one
of
our
presenters.
I
wanted
to
ask
about
something
that
you
touched
on,
which
is
the
pers
unfunded
liability,
something
that
of
course
comes
up
quite
a
bit
when
one
discusses
the
public
employees
retirement
system,
the
federal
reserve
recently
did
a
review
of
the
pers
system
and
the
the
year
I
wanted
to
ask
about
was
actually
2016.
E
for
that
year.
The
estimates
from
officials
with
purge
were
that
the
unfunded
liability
for
the
system
was
about
12.56
billion
dollars
that
same
year,
the
federal
reserve
estimated
the
unfunded
liability
to
be
about
43.3
billion
dollars.
Now,
obviously,
that
is
a
very,
very
significant
gap.
So
I'm
wondering
if,
if
you
might
be
able
to
speak
to
what
you
feel,
may
account
for
that
significant
difference,
I'm
not
sure
how
familiar
you
may
be
with
that
federal
reserve
review,
whether
you
believe
there
may
have
been
a
flaw
in
their
analysis.
E
D
Yes,
assemblyman
matthews.
This
is
steve,
edmondson
investment
officer,
nevada
purse.
I
I
am
somewhat
familiar
with
that
study
and
I
believe
the
primary
difference,
and
I
think
that,
with
that,
what
you
would
see
if
you
looked
at
that
study
was
that
the
fairly
wide
discrepancy
between
the
unfunded
liability
reported
by
public
pension
funds
across
the
board,
including
nevada,
pers
and
the
federal
reserve
study-
was
that
they
used
different
underlying
assumptions.
D
And
I
don't
know
what
the
underlying
investment
return
assumption
was
used
in
that
particular
study,
but
I
think
it
was
significantly
lower
than
what
the
the
median
public
venture
fund
assumes
for
their
investment
returns.
I
think,
is
the
the
primary
difference
between
those
two
numbers.
E
Thank
you
follow-up
question,
mr
chairman.
E
C
E
Just
as
a
point
of
clarification,
mr
chairman,
so
he
said,
14.5
billion
increase
over
about
12.56
billion
from
about
four
years
prior.
Is
that
correct.
C
That's
correct
that
the
the
actual
noctina
list
for
the
record-
I'm
sorry
the
actual
number
yes,
but
the
funded
ratio
increased
because
of
the
increase
of
the
assets
as
well.
E
Thank
you
no
more
questions
from
mr
chairman.
Thank
you.
H
G
Employees
for
this
program,
can
you
tell
me
what
the
benefits
are
to
the
state
for
having
this
type
of
program.
H
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
and
thank
you
director
list
as
well
as
mr
edmondson.
Incredible
information
really
appreciate
all
the
how
relatable
it
was.
My
question
has
to
do
with
slide
number
three
when
it
comes
to
the
independent
actuary
is
that
their
recommendation
has
to
be
adopted
or
may
be
adopted.
C
This
is
tinalis
for
the
record,
so
under
the
constitution
the
word
is:
shall
the
board
shall
adopt
actual
assumptions
based
upon
the
recommendations
made
by
the
independent
actuary?
So
we
do
believe
that
the
board
is
somewhat
limited
it.
It
shall
adopt
the
assumptions
based
on
what
the
actuary
recommends
and
the
actuary
is
fully
independent
of
state
government
for
the
reasons
to
make
sure
that
that
the
there
really
are
no
political
influences
on
those
assumptions.
So
it
is
a
show.
H
Thank
you
and
I
I
appreciate
that
clarification
and
then
the
second
portion,
oh
I'm
so
sorry,
mr
chair,
may
I
ask
a
second
question.
H
Thank
you
again
from
slide
three
or
right
around
that
time
frame.
You
had
mentioned
that
the
members
of
the
purse
board
are
appointed.
How
long
are
their
appointments
and
are
these
staggered
so
that
way
again,
there
is
a
mix
of
individuals
that
are
or
are
they
all
starting
brand
new,
every
single
time
that
we
have
a
new
governor?
Thank
you.
C
C
We
have
certain
years
where
we
have
three
new
members
or
potentially
three
new
members.
They
are
always
eligible
for
reappointment
and
we
have
one
year.
I
think
where
we
do
not
have
any
terms
ending,
so
they
are
somewhat
staggered.
Essentially,
three
two
or
one
or
zero,
and
those
are
like
said
four-year
terms.
They
they
are
governor
appointed,
but
they
don't
start
with
a
new
governor.
So,
for
instance,
the
governor
will.
A
A
I
don't
believe
we
have
anybody
else
wishing
to
ask
a
question.
I
wanted
to
thank
you
both
again
for
your
presentation
and
members
as
we
move
forward.
I
encourage
you
to
reach
out
to
them
and
they
they
have
a
wealth
of
information
and
I'm
sure
that
they're
very
accessible.
G
G
So
a
little
bit
about
our
agency,
the
public
employees
benefits
program
is
a
group
health
program.
We
have
about
45
000
primary
participants
and
those
those
primary
participants
cover
27
000
dependents.
So,
overall
we
cover
72
000
lives.
We
offer
comprehensive
medical
prescription
and
dental
vision
and
life
insurance
to
all
of
our
members,
similar
to
pers
pebb,
is
also
governed
by
a
board,
a
10-member
board
under
nrs
287,
and
we
have
34
staff.
So
we
are
a
fairly
small
agency
with
a
lot
of
responsibility.
G
Heb
is
funded
not
by
the
state's
general
fund,
but
by
employer
contributions.
So
those
are
agencies
that
that
are
contributing
the
employer
portion,
which
is
a
legislatively
set
amount
and
then
the
other
part
of
it
is
the
return
the
employee
and
retiree
premiums.
So
the
way
that
pep
receives
all
of
its
funding
is
through
employers
and
employees.
G
Our
mission
is
to
provide
employees,
retirees
and
their
families
with
access
to
high
quality
benefits
at
affordable
prices.
We
do
this
through
the
different
values
that
you
see
here
so
service
innovation,
accountability.
Transparency
is
big.
We
try
to
be
as
transparent
as
we
possibly
can.
Fairness,
integrity,
compassion,
sustainability
and
collaboration.
G
So
who
can
participate
in
pet?
We
typically
refer
to
the
two
different
categories
as
either
state
or
non-state,
so
state
is
considered
state
agencies,
the
boards
and
commissions
as
well,
so,
for
example,
the
board
of
nursing
and
then
also
the
legislature
and
the
system
of
higher
education.
G
G
What
I
do
want
to
point
out
here
is
that
those
employees
who
were
hired
after
january
1st
2012
are
not
eligible
for
subsidized
health
insurance
when
they
retire
so
moving
forward.
Anybody
hired
after
2012
will
not
receive
those
those
subsidies
that
we
offer
retirees
today.
G
The
other
category
is
non-states.
Those
are
local
governments
and
municipalities
out
there
exactly
it's
the
the
full-time
employees,
also
over
80
hours
in
a
month
and
but
the
employer
has
to
participate
in
the
program
and
currently
right
now
for
the
actives.
I
believe
we
only
have
a
handful
of
active
employees
under
that
non-state
category.
When
I
say
it's
a
handful,
it's
it's
about
10.,
also,
retirees
as
well.
We
we
offer
the
retirees
eligibility
through
our
program
as
well,
but
it
is
an
all-in
or
all-out
policy
after
2007..
G
G
So
pebb
coverage
highlights
we.
We
have
three
plans
today
we
have,
or
we
will
be,
offering
three
different
plans
coming
july
of
2021,
so
we
have
a
statewide
consumer-driven
health
plan.
That
is
a
what
we
call
a
cdhp.
It's
a
high
deductible
ppo
plan.
G
We
will
be
offering
coming
july
of
21
a
new
statewide
low,
deductible
plan
as
well,
and
then
we
have
two
regional
plans,
one
in
the
north
and
one
in
the
south
and
essentially
they're.
They
mirror
each
other
they're
they're,
almost
the
same
plan,
but
they're
discovered
under
different
different
entities.
G
On
top
of
the
just
basic
medical
coverage
that
we
offer,
we
also
offer
supplementary
benefits
through
a
voluntary
platform.
These
are
things
such
as
short-term
disability,
voluntary
life,
insurance,
long-term
care,
flexible
spending.
We
also
have
car
insurance
home
insurance.
Things
like
that
that
we
offer
through
group
plans
as
well
through
a
voluntary
platform,
so
this
this
gives
our
employees
and
our
members
access
to
additional
benefits
that
are
not
necessarily
subsidized
by
the
state
but
are
offered
by
the
state.
G
So
you're
going
to
hear
a
lot
about
upcoming
plan
design
changes
in
this
session
in
in
actually
throughout
the
entire
year
of
2020.
The
boar
the
pep
board
made
a
lot
of
changes
to
the
program
as
a
as
a
result
of
all
of
the
the
budget
challenges
that
we've
had
to
face,
and
so
the
we
did
offer
we
are.
G
As
I
just
mentioned,
we
are
offering
a
new
low
deductible
plan.
We
have
modifications
to
the
existing
plans
as
well.
G
We
made
some
out
of
network
billing
changes
where,
instead
of
using
fair
health
standards
to
negotiate
out
of
network
bill
charges,
we're
actually
moving
to
140
percent
of
medicare
model
and
that
actually
saves
the
plan
a
lot
of
money.
G
G
G
That
was
reduced
to
fifteen
thousand
and
seventy
five
hundred
respectively
and
the
elimination
of
the
long-term
disability
insurance,
long-term
disability
insurance
I'll
go
into
that
in
a
in
a
moment.
That
is
also
part
of
the
basic
package
that
have
had
members
receive
as
part
of
their
enrollment
in
japan,
and
then
the
medicare
exchange
hra
funding
that
was
reduced
from
13
a
month
per
year
of
service
to
11
a
month
per
year
of
service.
G
This
grid
here
just
demonstrates
where
we
are
at
today
and
what
the
board
chose
and
approved
in
back
in
november
as
a
result
of
the
12
reductions
that
we
were
asked
to
make
from
the
governor's
finance
office
or
by
the
government
governor's
finance
office
in
november,
and
then
what
actually
came
out
of
the
governor's
recommended
budget,
so
you'll
see
here
that
last
column
under
gov
wreck.
That
is
what
the
proposed
changes
are
to
the
july
1st
2021
plan
year.
G
You'll
see
that
some
of
those
deductibles
changed
from
on
the
cdhp
and
the
new
low
deductible
plan.
Actually
is
it's
actually
a
very,
very
low,
deductible
500
without
in
the
thousand
dollars
for
the
family,
and
then
we
have
the
epo
hmo,
which
is
your
typical
copay-based
hmo
type
plan
that
we
did
introduce
a
very,
very
small,
new
low
deductible
to
that
one
as
well.
G
But
overall
we
were
able
to
maintain
the
governor
in
his
in
his
budget,
and
his
recommended
budget
was
able
to
maintain
a
lot
of
those
benefit
levels,
because
a
lot
of
the
extra
funding
was
directed
towards
the
medical
side
of
our
benefits
versus
some
of
the
ancillary
products
that
we
have.
G
G
The
our
actuaries
actually
need
much
more
experience
and
trend
and
utilization
in
order
to
model
to
be
able
to
model
those
rates.
So
this
is
where
we
were
at
as
of
december,
but
those
rates
are
expected
to
maintain
to
be
pretty
stable
for
for
those
employees
and
retirees
on
our
plan.
G
G
G
We
were
asked
to
submit
flat
budgets
so
for
pebb,
a
flat
budget,
because
essentially
your
dollar
doesn't
go
as
far
with
with
health
care
right,
so
the
cost
increase
utilization
increases,
and
so
your
five
percent
or
your
flat
budget
is
approximately
a
five
percent
cut.
G
G
There
was
also
a
desire
for
a
low
deductible
option
back
in
the
day
prior
to
the
last
great
recession,
their
head
did
offer
a
low
deductible
plan
to
employees
and,
as
a
result
of
that
recession,
we
moved
to
a
high
deductible
plan,
and
so
you've,
we've
heard
through
public
comment
and
through
advocacy
groups
that
there
was
a
strong
desire
for
that
low
deductible
option
to
come
back.
So
we
worked
really
hard
to
make
sure
that
that
was
introduced
even
despite
the
challenges
that
we
faced
today.
G
G
They
also
do
not
require
referrals
from
a
primary
care
physician.
So
this
is
different
and
usually
in
an
hmo
model.
They
do
many
services.
Also
it's
very
important
to
note
that
they
are
co-pay
based
and
do
not
require
the
member
to
meet
the
deductibles.
So,
for
example,
going
to
see
your
primary
care
doctor
or
your
specialist
there's
a
co-pay
associated
with
that.
Not
you
you're
not
required
to
meet
that
deductible.
G
G
This
is
just
part
of
the
basic
package
and
the
reason
that
this
is
included
as
part
of
the
basic
packages.
If
you
heard
from
miss
lease
when
she
spoke
about
the
the
public
employees,
retirement
system
is
that
we
do
not
pay
into
social
security,
and
so
social
security
disability
is
not
an
option
for
those
folks
who
have
not
paid
into
social
security
before
they
before
they
started
with
the
with
their
state
employment.
G
G
So
what
I
wanted
to
point
out
here
is
that
there
are
some
states
that
do
pay
for
it.
So
just
a
quick
glance
on
the
on
the
western
in
in
the
western
states,
utah
and
washington
do
pay,
for
it
do
pay
for
this
benefit
for
their
members.
G
Colorado,
new
mexico
and
oregon,
though,
do
offer
it
as
an
opt-in,
and
they
they
have
employees
pay
for
this
benefit.
If
those
employees
want
it,
there
is
as
misleads
again
she
covered
during
her
presentation,
hers,
disability
retirement.
So
while
it's
not
the
same
benefit,
it
is
a
similar
benefit
where,
if
you
do
become
disabled,
those
that
pay
into
purse
do
have
that
disability.
Disability
retirement
benefit
also,
if
you
do
have
social
security,
so,
for
example,
perhaps
a
new
employee
who's
only
been
at
the
state.
G
For
you
know,
several
years
came
from
the
private
sector,
they
would
likely
have
social
security
and
may
have
access
to
ssdi.
G
We
are
also
offering
we're
looking
at
it
through
pebb,
to
offer
this
type
of
benefit
through
the
voluntary
platform
moving
forward,
so
those
employees
who
wish
to
purchase
this
benefit
are
going
to
have
access
through
our
voluntary
benefit
platform.
As
of
we're
hoping
january
1st
of
22.
G
other
plan
changes
that
were
made
throughout
the
year,
essentially,
these
plan
changes
all
have
one
goal
in
mind
or
policy
changes.
I'm
sorry.
The
these
policy
changes
are
really
to
make
the
program
more
actuarily
sound,
so
you've
heard
me
say
that
pebb
does
use
independent
actuaries
that
we
contract
with
and
that
assist
us
throughout
the
all
of
our
processes
and
administration
of
the
program.
G
So
there
were
a
few
gaps
that
where
the
actuaries
were
in
the
historically
had
done
their
job
and
then
pep
would
come
in
and
do
something
else
to
it,
making
it
less
actually
sound,
and
so
what
we
did
and
what
the
board
did
is
make
some
policy
decisions
to
ensure
that
this
did
not
happen
and
ensure
that
that
actuarial
process
was
maintained
throughout
you
know
from
beginning
to
end,
and
so
some
of
the
things
that
were
done
is
we
the
board,
decided
to
or
approve
the
underwriting
of
all
self-funded
plans.
G
So
basically,
we
have
two
risk
pools
that
are
statutorily
required.
We
have
the
the
state
and
the
non-state
risk
pool.
While
we
maintain
those
risk
pools
separately.
We
have
underwritten
all
of
the
self-funded
plans
into
one
single
risk
pool.
So
all
of
those
plans,
for
example
the
the
cdhp
the
epo
and
the
new
low
deductible
plan,
are
all
they
are
all
part
of
a
they're,
all
pep
responsibility
and
so
they're
all
considered
as
one
group
and
they're
all
underwritten.
That
way.
G
This
creates
stability
among
all
the
different
plans,
and
so,
if
you
have,
for
example,
one
you
know
or
a
group
of
highly
sick
individuals
who
are
on
one
plan
and
then
during
open
enrollment,
they
move
to
another
plan.
G
We
also
in
the
past
have
favored
one
plan
over
another
and
that
really
doesn't
make
sense,
because
a
peb
plan
is
a
pet
plan.
We
we
shouldn't
care
what
plan
our
members
are
in
and
we
should
contribute
to
those
those
plans
equally,
and
so
the
policy
was
changed
where
all
plans
will
receive
an
equal
flat
dollar
subsidy
amount.
So
that's
that
subsidy
amount
that
I
mentioned
earlier,
that
a
that
the
legislature
approves.
G
G
We
have
simplified
the
hsa
and
hra
funding
the
way
that
we
do
that
in
the
past,
and
this
has
changed
a
little
bit
with
the
budget
situation
that
we
have.
But
in
the
past
we
have
funded
our
high
deductible
plan
with
employee
employer
contributions,
so
the
state
has
funded
or
our
program
has
funded
that
hsa
account
or
those
people
on
the
high
deductible
plan
and
we
funded
it
by
giving
the
employees
a
basic
amount
and
then,
if
they
had
any
dependents
depending
on
the
amount
of
dependence,
we
would
give
them
additional
amounts.
G
The
board
chose
to
eliminate
the
the
this
strategy
and
instead
fund
it
basically
on
on
an
employee-only
level,
and
what
this
does
is
it
eliminates
the
dependent
variable.
So
there's
there's
a
lot
of
guessing
and
projections
that
happen
in
our
program
and
that
have
a
a
very
significant
impact
on
our
budget
and
so
the
more
variables
we
have,
the
the
more
guessing.
You
know
we
have
the
more
times
we
have
to
guest
right.
G
Essentially
so
this
eliminates
that
dependent
variable
and
just
simplifies
the
funding
strategy
so
that
we
can
again
have
improved
budget
projections.
G
We
also
did
a
streamlining
of
tier
factors
so
to
ensure
that
the
rates
were
actually
sound.
Historically,
what
we've
done
is
we've
had
our
actuaries
come
up
with
proposed
the
the
overall
rates
for
the
program
and
they
use
they
use
actuarial
methodology
for
this,
and
so
then
they
give
it
to
ted,
and
pep
has
come
along
and
said.
G
Okay,
now
we're
going
to
add
all
of
our
administrative
fees
to
this,
and
so
that
has
taken
away
from
the
the
soundness
of
what
those
actuaries
have
done,
and
so
we
changed
this
strategy
recently,
so
that
the
actuaries
are
now
very
heavily
involved
from
the
beginning
to
the
end,
and
this
this
strategy
now
includes
more
traditional
actuarial
underwriting
and
includes
all
of
our.
The
actuaries
are
very,
very
involved
in
the
inclusion
of
the
plan,
administrative
costs
that
are
worked
into
the
overall
rates.
G
So
what
is
self-funded
hab
is
a
it's.
We
are
a
self-funded
plan,
so
this
means
that
pebb
is
responsible
for
member
claims.
We
are,
we
are
the
insurance
company,
we
pay
those
claims
that
come
in
and
how
do
we
pay
those
claims?
Those
again
are
through
the
employer
and
employee
contributions,
and
they
have
to
be
sufficient
to
cover
the
cost
of
claims
in
that
plan
year.
So
this
is
why
we
use
actuaries
actuaries
again.
They
they
do
the
projections
and
they
essentially
report
to
bed.
G
This
is
what
we
project
that
your
plan
based
on
cost
based
on
trend
and
utilization.
This
is
what
it's
going
to
cost
the
program
to
run,
and
this
is
what
you
need
to
charge
in
premiums
and
plan
premiums
and
again
this
is
a
statutorily
required
or
it's
a
requirement
to
include
those
actuarial
consultants
to
to
determine
those
overall
rates.
G
So
how
does
it
work
members?
So
pep
leases
networks,
members
access
providers
under
those
networks,
then,
when
a
member
goes
and
uses
a
provider,
let's
say
they
go
to
a
primary
care
position.
That
provider
then
bills
peb.
That
claim
is
then
repriced.
There's
a
there's,
a
build
cost
and
then
there's
a
build
claim
and
then
there's
a
paid
claim.
Usually
that's
they're,
very
different
in
pricing.
G
The
build
is
what
the
provider
bills
and
then
the
the
actual
paid
claim
is
the
repriced
claim
at
the
network
contracted
rates
which
are
usually
quite
a
bit
lower.
Our
third
party
administrator
pays
the
claim
and
then
they
also
apply
the
member
accumulator.
So
when
I
say
when
I
talk
about
an
accumulator,
a
an
accumulator
references,
those
deductibles
and
out-of-pocket
maxes,
so
that's
the
the
tracking
that
goes
along
with
it,
and
this
is
also
a
very,
very
simplified
version.
G
G
We
also
have
reserves,
so
we
have
some
required
reserves.
Those
are
incurred,
but
not
report
reported
or
also
referred
to
as
ibnr.
Those
reserves
are
for
claims
that
have
transpired
but
have
not
been
reported
yet.
So
these
are
people
that
have
gone
to
the
doctor,
but
we
have
we
don't
know
about
it.
Yet
we
have
not
been
billed
for
it.
G
G
This
is
the
same
for
catastrophic
reserves
too.
So
we
are
a
self-funded
plan.
We
cannot
get
ourselves
into
a
situation
where
we
cannot
pay
our
claims,
and
so
these
reserves
are
intended
to
cover
those
unprojected
claims
and
losses
that
we
may
not
have
accounted
for.
So,
for
example,
the
actuaries
look
at
they
make
those
projections
and
they
say
every
year.
G
This
is
what
we
think
that
your
program
will
cost
to
you
to
run,
but
we
don't
know
if
we
have,
for
example,
just
recently
we
had
a
an
individual
who
had
seven
million
dollars
in
claims.
That
was
not
a
projected
cost,
and
that
is
a
very,
very
significant
impact
to
the
program,
and
so
this
is
something
that
would
be
outside
of
the
norm
and
if
you
have
enough
of
those,
you
have
to
dip
into
catastrophic
catastrophic
reserves.
G
So
those
reserves
are
funded
at
a
level
equal
to
50
days
of
claims
payments
again.
These
are
also
actually
determined
as
well.
This
is
a
required
reserve
as
well,
so
then
there's
also
the
hra
health
reimbursement
arrangement,
and
these
are
reserves
intended
to
cover
the
unused
hra
balances.
You
heard
me
say
that
the
medicare
exchange
folks,
so
those
are
our
retirees
who
are
on
the
medicare
exchange.
They
have.
G
G
Those
are
those
accumulate
they
accrue,
and
so
we
have
their
our
hra
reserve
to
cover
those
because
we
don't
pay
those.
The
hra
is
not
a
payment
to
the
members,
it's
a
reimbursement,
and
so
we
have
to
have
a
sufficient
balance
to
reimburse
those
claims.
G
Those
are
also
those
are
funded
at
an
eighty
percent
level
and
it
is
also
required
reserve.
Then
the
last
category
is
access
reserves.
In
the
past,
the
legislature
has
heard
a
lot
about
excess
reserves,
because
the
plan
and
the
program
had
accrued
quite
a
significant
level
of
excess
reserves,
and
so
there
was
a
a
push
to
get
the
program
to
spend
down
those
excess
reserves
and
put
them
back
into
into
the
plan
to
offset
some
of
those
the
costs
coming
into
the
plan
that
has
now
been
it's.
G
It's
now
reduced
to
acceptable
levels.
I
think,
but
basically
what
that
is
is
the
difference
between
the
cash
received
and
the
cash
spent
at
the
end
of
each
fiscal
year.
So
it's
what
what
we're
left
over
with
and
with
a
budget
as
large
as
ours
and
based
on
so
many
projections,
especially
in
a
year
with
you,
know,
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
health
care
challenges.
G
G
Plan
year,
2223
member
impact
so
plan
year,
22
changes.
That's
this
is
this
upcoming
plan
year,
which
starts
in
july.
We
have
a
new
eligibility
and
enrollment
system
which
goes
live
in
january.
G
We
don't
want
to
do
this
over
open
enrollment.
We
don't
want
to
roll
something
out
during
the
time
when
everyone
is
is
selecting
their
plans,
and
you
know
there's
a
lot
of
activity
through
in
our
in
our
program,
so
we're
waiting
until
january
to
roll
this
out.
G
G
G
This
provider
network
will
obviously
change
the
the
providers
that
are
available
compared
to
what
they
are
today,
and
so
there
will
be
a
disruption
in
some
ways.
There
will
be
a
there
will
be
additions
to
the
provider
network,
for
example,
for
those
of
us
in
the
north
we
will
have
access
now
to
st
mary's,
which
is
not
something
that
heb
members
have
had
had
access
to,
at
least
in
the
last
decade.
G
So
this
is
a
big
big
win
for
us
in
the
north,
but
there
will
be
some
provider
disruption
and
pebb
will
be
reaching
out
to
anybody
who
has
a
provider
today
who
is
using
a
provider
today
who
is
projected
to
not
be
in
network
moving
forward
in
july?
So
this
is
going
to
be
a
big
communications
reach
reach
out
to
those
members.
G
Then
we
have
potential
plan
year.
23
changes
that
we
have
a
lot
of
contracts
that
go
out
to
bid
and
not
only
are
they
a
lot
of
contracts,
but
they
are
the
very,
very
significant
contracts
that
may
potentially
change.
So
we
could
potentially
see
ourselves
with
a
new
pharmacy
benefit
manager.
So
this
is
any
anyone
who
has
a
pharmacy
claim
goes
through
the
pbm,
the
pharmacy
benefit
manager.
They
are
the
the
vendor
who
processes
those
pharmacy
claims.
G
Then
we
have
a
potentially
new.
Third
party
administrator-
this
is
all
of
the
medical
claims,
go
through
the
third
party
administrator,
so
you
can
already
see
that
there's
going
to
be
a
significant
member
impact,
whether
you
use
it,
you
use
pebb
or
your
medical
or
for
your
rx.
You
are
going
to
see
a
change.
If
these
providers
change
or
if
these
vendors
change
hands,
we
will
likely
have
a
new
hsa
and
hra
administrator,
a
telemedicine
provider,
shopping
tool,
comparison
provider
and
then
also
potentially,
more
national
and
statewide
network
changes
as
well.
G
G
So,
like
you
heard
me
just
discuss,
we
have
gone
through
a
lot
of
different
contract
changes
in
this
fy22.
G
Luckily,
the
there's
been
some
of
the
the
dental
network
and
some
of
these
that
we've
already
gone
out
to
bid
for
have
we've
maintained
the
same
vendors
and
so
there's
not
going
to
be
a
lot
of
changes
there.
However,
you
did
just
hear
me
talk
about
the
in-state
medical
network
that
will
be
changing.
G
Not
only
is
there
an
impact
to
the
members,
but
this
is
a
very,
very
significant
impact
to
pebb
as
well
into
our
budget,
because
those
contracted
rates
through
that
network
are
are,
will
have
a
significant
impact
on
the
budget,
because
that
is
the
majority
of
our
budget
is
claims,
and
so
any
changes
in
claims
will
definitely
have
you'll
see
those
changes
in
our
budget
as
well
or
in
our
in
our
spending
and
our
expenditures
we
luckily
we
are.
G
We
are
projected
to
save
several
million
dollars
out
of
this
network
change.
So
I'm
happy
about
that,
but
we
also
have
you
know
different
changes.
We
maintained
our
hmo
down
in
the
south,
so
the
state
it's
the
same
vendor
there
we're
changing
our
financial
auditor,
our
health
plan,
auditor
and
and
our
benefits
management
system.
G
So
those
are
all
contracts
that
affect
our
budget
and
then,
as
you
just
heard
me
say,
we
have
a
lot
of
contracts
that
are
renewing
in
fy
23
as
well,
so
those
are
going
to
have
major
cost
implications
and
then
claims
covet
has
affected
everybody,
but
it's
definitely
affected
our
our
program.
The
covet
19
claims
cost
we
have
been
receiving
reimbursements
through
through
the
cares
act,
but
that
is
again
it's
an
unknown
as
to
whether
that's
going
to
be
available
moving
forward
and
then
also
while
vaccine
costs,
our
vaccines
are
free.
G
There
is
still
a
cost
to
the
program
and
so
similar
to,
for
example,
a
flu
vaccine.
The
program
is
administered
a
what
an
admit.
An
administrative
fee
is
really
what
it
is.
It's
a
cost
that
the
provider
charges
the
program
and
it's
a
low
fee,
it's
about
25,
but
if
you're
talking
25
and
everybody
receives
a
vaccine
right,
that's
an
unprojected
cost
to
the
program
that
we
had
not
budgeted
for
plan
design
changes
as
well.
So
we
introduced
a
new
plan
or
we're
going
to
introduce
a
new
plan.
G
We
don't
know.
Usually
it
takes
a
couple
years
before
we
actually
see
us
stabilization
in
utilization,
so
for
the
first
couple
years,
there's
kind
of
an
up
and
down
in
utilization
and
it's
hard
to
project
trend.
G
We
also
have
a
medical
and
pharmacy
trend,
so,
typically
on
any
normal
year,
we
would
have
a
fairly
solid
projections
as
to
what
we
think
trend
is
going
to
be,
unfortunately,
with
kovid
that
that's
really
really
impacted
trend
and
so
well.
We
have
aggressively
project
we've
project
or
we've
made
aggressive
projections
on
trend
based
on
hovid
having
an
effect
again.
G
G
So
pep
has
some
proposed
legislation
out
there,
ab48
authorizes
certain
retired
public
officers
and
employees
to
reinstate
insurance
under
the
public
employees.
Benefits
program.
You'll
see
this
legislation
out
there.
Basically,
this
is
to
fix
a
problem
that
we
were
having
where
we
have
a
disparity
between
the
state
and
the
non-state
state
employees
who
have
are
on
the
or
state
retirees.
I'm
sorry
who
are
on
the
exchange
are.
They
do
have
one
opportunity
to
leave
and
come
back
non-state
employees
by
statute.
G
Do
not
what
was
happening
was
they
were
mistakenly
disenrolling
from
our
program,
because
what
would
happen
is
they
would
disenroll
through
or
they
would
enroll
through
our
vendor
and
then
they'd
go
to?
Let's
say
health,
fair
or
something
and
the
you'd
have
a
retiree
that
would
be
approached
by
a
health
plan.
G
Let's
say
aarp
and
they
would
say,
hey,
look,
we've
got
this
great
health
plan
and
you
should
enroll
through
us
and
so
the
that
retiree
would
enroll
and
that
would
subsequently
disenroll
them
from
the
peb
program
because
they
were
enrolled
in
a
different
medicare
plan
and
they
would
lose
all
of
their
benefits
so
they're
that
that
260
dollars
a
month
that
I
referred
to
earlier,
they
were
getting
that
they
would
lose
it
and
statutorily.
G
It
could
not
be
reinstated
because
those
non-state
retirees
would
not
have
that
ability
to
come
back
to
the
program,
and
so
they
do
lose
that.
So
this
really
just
gives
those
the
non-state
retirees
the
same
ability
to
reinstate
that
one
one-shot
opportunity
to
come
back
to
the
program
and
reinstate
their
benefits.
Should
they
make
a
mistake
like
this.
G
A
And
thank
you
for
your
presentation,
members.
I
know
that
there
was
a
lot
of
material
that
was
thrown
at
you,
but
I
don't
know
if
there's
any
way
to
have
this
conversation
without
doing
it
this
way.
Well,
thank
you
again
for
that
presentation
and
we'll
go
ahead
and
open
it
up
and
start
off
with
simon
ellison.
Please.
E
I
G
No,
so
so,
if,
if
a
member
retires,
they.
A
Catch
you
off,
if
I
could
still
have
you
state
your
name
for
the
record,
I'm.
G
Right
so
it
it
does
not.
It
does
not
matter
to
the
program
when
a
member
retires,
if
they
have
drawn
retirement,
they
then
are
eligible
to
come
back,
but
they
are
not
eligible
to
eligible
to
come
back
once
as
a
retiree
and
but
that
is
it
if
they
come
back
as
a
there's,
it
gets
a
little
muddy
because
we
do
have
some
of
these
legislative
employees
who
come
back
temporarily
and
I'm
happy
to
to
provide
you
some
of
the
the
exceptions
to
all
of
these.
G
I
don't
know
if
it
would
be
wise
of
me
to
go
into
all
of
the
details
right
now.
I'm
happy
to
provide
them
to
you
in
writing,
but
there
are
some
exceptions
to
a
lot
of
these
rules.
However,
generally
no,
if
someone
retires,
then
then
you,
you
start
drawing
retirement,
and
that
is
your
opportunity
to
come
on
to
the
program
and
you
have
one
additional
opportunity
to
come
on
to
the
program
if
you
were
to
disenroll
for
any
reason.
I
A
Thank
you
assemblyman
next,
we'll
go
to
assemblywoman
anderson.
Please.
H
Good
morning,
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
very
informative
information.
Ms
rich,
my
question
has
to
do
with
the
board
itself.
I
I
understand
that
it
was
interesting
to
hear
about
all
the
money
situations
and
the
money
decisions,
but
I
think
we're
more
about
the
policy
on
this
on
this
committee.
So
my
question
has
to
do
with
the
board
members
that
are
appointed.
H
They
make
the
decisions.
Can
the
governor's
finance
office
make
a
decision
that
and
then
not
give
it
back
to
that
board?
I
guess
I
I'm
really
asking
this
more
about
the
eliminating
of
the
long-term
insurance
and
disability.
Was
that
a
decision
of
the
board
of
pep
or
was
that
a
decision
made
out
of
the
governor's
office.
G
For
the
record
law
rich,
it
was
so
the
board
has
the
ability
to
make
policy
decisions.
The
board
is
ultimately
appointed
by
the
governor.
G
All
all
10
members
are
appointed
by
the
governor,
unlike
pers,
pebb
is
subject
to
the
budget
act,
and
so
we
do
go
through
the
the
governor's
finance
office,
and
so
when,
when
that
happens,
and
I'll
go
through
kind
of
the
steps
so
that
you
understand,
there's
a
agencies
typically
submit
an
agency
request
budget,
and
so
the
way
pep
goes
about
it
is
we
present
options
to
the
board
and
the
board
makes
those
decisions
and
approves
ultimately
what
the
what
the.
G
Agency
will
submit
to
the
governor's
finance
office
at
that
point.
The
governor's
finance
office
typically
has
the
ability
to
make
different
budget
decisions
and,
unfortunately,
with
our
program,
it's
every
budget
decision
is
a
planned
design
decision
as
well,
and
so
when
you,
when
you
take
or
add
from
the
program,
you
there's
levers,
and
so
the
governor's
finance
office
definitely
has
to
work
with
staff
and
in
this
situation
during
the
the
budget
challenges
that
we
were
facing
in
november
december,
there
was
obviously
not
a
lot
of
time.
G
We
had
a
board
meeting
at
the
end
of
november.
The
agency
submitted
our
12
budget
proposals
to
the
governor's
finance
office
and
then
once
the
economic
forum
met,
there
was
some.
G
G
G
So
while
yes,
the
governor's
finance
office,
does
have
only
budgetary
authority
to
make
those
those
changes.
Ultimately,
with
our
program,
it
affects
the
plan
design,
which
is
not
it's
not
outside
of
the
norm.
I
believe
that
back
during
the
last
recession,
something
similar
to
this
happened,
where
the
governor's
finance
office
had
to
make
decisions
that
were
outside
of
the
board,
based
on
the
situation
at
hand
at
the
time.
So
hopefully
that
answers
your
question.
H
Follow
up
for
fun?
May
mr
chair
follow.
H
It
does
to
an
extent
not
not
as
further
as
full
as
I
would
like,
so
I
might
be
doing
a
conversation
with
you
offline,
if
you're,
okay
with
that,
but
I
do
have
a
quick
follow-up
with
that
decision.
Are
the
individuals
in
the
budget
in
the
governor's
budget
office
aware
or
have
the
expertise
that
the
pet
board
has?
I
mean
that's
one
reason
why
they
are
appointed
to
it
is
because
of
their
knowledge
of
the
different
systems
and
in
the
second
question,
so
this
was
in
fact
approved
by
the
pep.
G
G
So
yes
and
then
to
your
other
question,
the
governor's
finance
office.
While
they
do
not
have
the
peb
specific
expertise,
they
understand
the
peb
budget
and-
and
we
have
a
budget
analyst
that
is
specifically
assigned
to
the
public
employees
benefits
program.
So
there's
a
level
of
understanding
as
to
how
it
impacts
budgetarily.
They
also
do
follow
all
of
our
our
board
meetings
but
they're,
not
tasked
with
the
specific
requirements
that
the
board
is
tasked.
A
With
and
I'm
assuming,
we
don't
have
any
follow-ups
there,
assemblywoman.
Okay,
thank
you
and
next
we'll
go
with
our
madame
vice
chair.
Please.
B
Thank
you,
so
my
questions
are
going
to
be
focused
around
the
elimination
of
long-term
disability,
which
was
mostly
covered
on
slide
10
of
the
presentation,
I'm
gonna
as
I'm
looking
at
it.
We
you,
you
talked
a
little
bit
about
like
a
possible
like
the
voluntary
long-term
disability
and
I'm
just
wondering
cost
to
the
employee.
For
that.
G
The
long-term
for
the
record,
lower
rich
for
long-term
disability,
is
very
dependent
on
the
age
of
a
person.
It's
also
dependent
on
the
salary
of
a
person
because,
as
you
as
you
heard
me
say,
the
benefit
levels
are
at
a
percentage
of
the
salary.
So
obviously
that's
going
to
be
a
very
individualized
it
is,
it
will
definitely
be
a
cost,
a
significant
cost
to
the
employee.
It's
well,
I
don't
know
or
certain
what
it
will
be,
and
I
hate
to
quote
something:
I'm
not
a
long-term
disability
expert.
G
Nor
am
I
an
insurance
agent.
If
any
of
any
type,
it
will
definitely
be
a
significant
cost,
something
you
know
along
the
lines
of,
I
would
say
upwards
of
50.
B
And
would
that
be
50
per
paycheck
just
to
ensure
I'm
understanding
quickly.
G
For
the
record
lower
rich,
this
would
likely
be
per
month
and
again,
this
is
just
a
guess
based
on
what
I've
heard
anecdotally
and
you
know
again
it
would.
It
would
depend
on
what
those
salaries
are.
So
someone
making
thirty
five
thousand
dollars
obviously
pay
a
lot
less
than
someone
making
a
hundred
and
thirty
five
thousand
dollars.
B
Thank
you.
I
appreciate
that
and
I
I
understand
that
it
might
be
hard
to
give
an
exact
number
when
there's
so
many
other
factors
that
come
to
place.
I
really
do
appreciate
that
you
know,
and
I
I
guess
I
just
have
some
concerns
about
the
long-term
disability.
If
we've
looked
at
or
assessed
whether
or
not
getting
rid
of
that
could
have
a
greater
impact
in
other
places
for
the
state
of
nevada.
I
just
imagine
if
an
individual
is
qualified
for
long-term
disability,
then
they're
probably
not
able
to
get
back
to
work
in
another
capacity.
B
G
The
record
law
rich
as
I
as
I
mentioned
earlier-
there
are
options
for
those
those
people
that
find
themselves
in
that
situation.
It
is
not
the
same
and
they're
very
there's
their
alternatives,
but
not
the
same,
not
exact
alternatives
ssdi.
For
example.
If
someone
has
access
to
has
paid
into
social
security
disability,
they
would
have
access
to
that
benefit.
They
would
also
have
access
to
the
the
pers
disability
retirement
benefit
as
well.
So
there
are.
There
are
definitely
alternatives
to
that
now.
You
know
whether
there
would
be
impacts
down
the
road.
B
Thank
you.
Yes,
I
would
definitely
appreciate
that,
because
I
just
imagined
that
that
would
be
draining
on
our
other
social
services
as
well,
and
that
the
economic
impact
of
that
might
not
be
worth
the
savings
that
we
would
otherwise
see.
A
And
members,
do
we
have
any
other
questions?
I
I
don't
believe
we
do,
but
I
want
to
make
sure
that
I
didn't
actually
go
over
somebody's
question
here.
Seeing
none.
I
want
to
thank
you
for
for
your
presentation,
thank
you
and
again,
as
always,
and
previously
stated
make
sure
that
members
you
reach
out
to
her
with
questions
as
we
move
forward
throughout
session.
A
Again,
you
have
somebody
in
front
of
you
who
has
a
wealth
of
information
and
somebody
who's
always
willing
to
work
with
us.
So
with
that
I'm
gonna
go
ahead
and
close
out
the
hearing
or
better
set
of
the
presentation
from
public
employees
benefit
program
and
at
this
time
broadcasting.
If
we
could
go
to
public
comment,
do
we
have
anybody
wishing
to
speak
for
public
comment.
A
Thank
you
broadcasting
whenever,
whenever
you're
ready
we're
ready
to
take
public
comment-
and
I
would
like
to
remind
the
wishing
speak
in
public
comment
that
you
please
remain
respectful
and
that,
because
we
are
on
time
constraints,
I
ask
that
you
limit
your
remarks
to
two
minutes.
Should
your
remarks
be
longer
than
that?
There's
always
the
option
of
you
typing
them
up
and
sending
them
via
email
so
that
we
can
put
those
for
the
public
to
see.
I
I
The
impact
of
this
approach
is
obvious:
high
out-of-pocket
maximums
in
the
cdhp
and
new
ppo
plans
shift
costs
to
the
sickest
state
employees
who
can
least
afford
that
burden.
Cutting
two
dollars
per
month
to
retiree
contributions
is
a
regressive
tax
on
members
living
on
fixed
incomes
and
the
proposed
elimination
of
long-term
disability
insurance
is
dangerous
and
cruel
for
workers
who,
by
state
and
federal
agreement,
are
not
covered
by
social
security.
I
Thousands
of
peb
members
do
not
have
enough
accumulated
emperors
to
be
able
to
survive
being
disabled
for
very
long,
and
the
7
000
higher
education
faculty
in
our
state
would
be
left
with
nothing.
Should
they
face
an
illness
or
accident
that
prevents
them
from
working
or
if
they
contract
covet
19
and
be
among
the
growing
number
of
cases
who
suffer
long-term
disability.
I
I
am
hearing
daily
from
front-line
professionals
in
our
state's
fight
against
the
pandemic.
Doctors,
nurses
and
staff
with
the
unlv
medical
school
nursing
faculty
from
the
college
of
southern
nevada
and
education
professionals,
who
must
engage
one-on-one
with
the
public
and
our
nevada
students.
The
elimination
of
ltd
insurance
is
asking
these
most
courageous
of
our
state
workers
to
do
their
jobs
on
a
tightrope
without
a
net.
That's
just
not
right.
I
I
was
a
bit
distressed
that
executive
officer
rich
made
the
comparison
to
oregon
state
employees
and
their
voluntary
ltd
insurance
oregon
state
employees
have
social
security,
so
voluntary
ltd
insurance
is
an
add-on
for
them.
Furthermore,
the
costs
are
much
more
than
fifty
dollars
a
month
for
most
board
member
michelle
kelly
priced
it
out
at
the
last
pegboard
meeting.
You
can
see
it
on
the
record
and
she
couldn't
find
a
policy
for
less
than
two
hundred
dollars
a
month.
This
just
isn't
right
and
it's
a
most
urgent
issue
for
state
employees.
I
A
E
E
It
was
particularly
difficult
to
watch
the
pub
board.
Try
to
navigate
the
new
recommendations
from
the
governor's
budget
proposal
in
the
november
board.
Meeting
pep
voted
to
reduce
the
long-term
disability
benefit
from
60
coverage
to
50
coverage.
Recognizing
that
reducing
the
benefit
in
lieu
of
eliminating
it
outright
was
the
preferred
option.
E
During
the
last
board
meeting
during
last
week's
board
meeting,
it
was
clear
that
the
appetite
of
the
board
was
to
keep
the
50
long-term
disability
benefit,
but
were
advised
that
they
could
not
go
against
the
governor's
recommendations
and
that
it
would
be
up
to
the
legislature
to
address
this.
I
understand
that
few
people
are
actually
using
the
long-term
disability
benefit
in
any
given
year,
but
that's
the
point
of
insurance.
E
You
hope
to
never
have
to
use
it,
but
you
have
peace
of
mind
knowing
that
it's
there,
if
you
did
during
the
meeting,
laura
rich
gave
alternatives
for
those
who
may
find
themselves
in
this
unfortunate
situation.
I'm
an
ng
employee
who
is
not
in
the
pers
retirement
system,
so
I'm
not
eligible
to
take
that
long-term
disability
benefit.
I
also
do
not
pay
into
social
security,
so
I'd
be
ineligible
for
social
security,
disability
benefits
to
assembly,
women,
taurus's
question
I
and
other
employees
who
share
similar
enrollment
would
be
taking
on
medicaid.
E
A
E
E
F
Thank
you,
members
of
the
government
affairs
committee.
My
name
is
marlene
lockard
l-o-c-k-a-r-d
and
I'm
representing
the
retired
public
employees
of
nevada.
F
We
have
made
and
testified
during
these
tough
budget
times
of
what
our
preference
would
be
in
making
these
difficult
cuts,
so
we're
representing
the
bearing
membership
that
the
peb
board
that
peb
was
created
to
provide
the
employee
benefits
for
so
I
just
want
to
make
that
point
and
also
to
state
that
several
sessions
ago,
we
had
a
bill
that
strengthened
the
requirements
and
qualifications
for
peb
board
members,
and
I,
in
my
opinion,
think
we
have
one
of
the
strongest
most
qualified
in
this
industry
of
ped
members
than
we've
had
in
a
very
long
time.
F
F
F
The
state
appropriates
more
money
for
medicare
retirees
than
flows
back
to
them,
and
so
each
year
the
medicaid
medicare
employees,
retirees
leave
money
in
the
state
budget
and
we
get
no
other
benefit
from
the
state
and
so
to
reduce
the
employer
contribution
from
13
to
11
and
really
reduce
at
the
most
vulnerable
stage
of
a
retiree's
life.
The
life
insurance
is
really
a
very
bitter
pill
to
swallow.
A
E
I
I
The
independence
of
the
peb
board
is
a
policy
concern
for
the
legislature
and
the
committee
on
government
affairs
this
session,
because
the
recommendations
and
priorities
of
the
peb
board
on
plan
design
decisions
were
overridden
in
the
executive
budget.
I
submitted
written
comments,
provide
additional
details
in
the
1999
session,
sb
544
created
the
peb
board
to
replace
an
advisory
committee
on
benefits
within
the
department
of
administration.
I
I
The
board
is
required
to
have
expertise
in
benefits,
program
and
board
members
serve
as
fiduciaries
to
participants
and
the
program
when
they
were
required
to
make
the
very
deep
12
percent
budget
cuts.
In
november,
the
poor
board
made
those
difficult
decisions
to
reduce
medical
payments,
increase
employee
premiums
and
they
trimmed
but
did
not
eliminate
life
insurance
and
long-term
disability
insurance.
I
Govrek
went
against
the
priorities
of
the
board
and
it
completely
eliminates
the
long-term
disability
insurance
benefit,
which,
as
you've
heard,
is
the
essential
safety
net
for
a
state
employee
who
becomes
disabled.
Now.
We
can
only
hope
that
the
budget
committees
will
find
funds
to
restore
long-term
disability
insurance
for
state
employees,
as
the
policy
committee
overseeing
pebb,
the
government
affairs
committee
should
consider
now
whether
the
statute
and
nrs
287
established
in
the
pep
board
with
the
authority
over
plan
design
need
to
be
strengthened.
A
A
A
Of
the
public,
who
had
an
opportunity
to
speak
today,
thank
you
for
doing
that.
This
is
your
place
to
be
heard
and
it's
our
obligation
to
listen.
So
I
appreciate
you
participating
in
this
process
with
that
members.
I
I
don't
think
we
have
anything
else
on
the
agenda.
However,
I
I
do
know
that
obviously,
several
members
of
the
public
brought
up
issues
specifically
referring
to
pebbin,
and
I
know
I
believe
we
still
have
our
executive
director
on
on
the
line
laura
rich.
A
I
don't
know
if
you
wish
to
address
any
of
those
concerns,
but
in
the
interest
of
maybe
avoiding
a
back
and
forth
or
because
we
won't
have
given
the
opportunity.
Those
in
the
public
comment
to
do
that.
A
H
Thank
you,
chair
flores,
and
thank
you
miss
rich
for
for
allowing
that
some
of
the
testimony
that
was
brought
up
in
particular
miss
dr
naumann's.
Were
there
other
discussions
and
or
considerations
as
opposed
to
completely
getting
rid
of
the
long-term
disability?
G
At
the
november
board
meeting
based
on
the
12
budget
proposals
that
the
program
had
to
come
up
with
and
submit
to
the
governor's
finance
office,
yes,
the
board
chose
to
not
eliminate
long-term
disability
completely
and
instead
reduce
it.
And,
like
I
mentioned
earlier,
everything
in
our
program
is
levers.
G
You
take
away
one
thing
you
have,
or
you
add
one
thing
you
have
to
take
it
away
from
somewhere
else,
and
so
the
results
of
that
were
the
the
premiums
were
going
to
be
significantly
higher
and
so
we're
out
of
pocket
expenses
and
deductibles,
and
things
like
that.
So
everything
comes
at
a
cost.
G
If
you
want
to
add
something
back,
you
have
to
take
something
else
away
and
I
think
the
governor's,
the
governor's
recommended
budget
focuses
on
keeping
those
premiums
stable
so
that
there's
no
increases
or
significant
increases
to
have
members
and
then
also
keeping
those
that
first
dollar
coverage,
anything
that
could
present
a
barrier
so
a
deductible,
for
example,
on
the
cd,
if
you're
on
the
cdhp
that
deductible
today
is
fifteen
hundred
dollars.
The
plan
does
not
pay
anything
until
you
have
met
that
fifteen
hundred
dollar
deductible.
G
That
can
be
quite
a
burden
on
folks.
If
you
raise
that
even
to
I
believe
the
level
was
2000
that
was
presented
in
at
the
or
approved
at
the
november
board
meeting.
So
again,
there
was
yes
when,
if
those
benefits
are
reinstated,
you
have
to
then
reduce
other
benefits
and
it's
what
benefits.
Would
you
know
there's
there's
that
question.
H
A
And
again,
miss
rich.
I
appreciate
you
staying
on
the
call
and
coming
back
I
I
do
encourage
you
to
please,
if
you'd
like,
to
provide
any
additional
material
to
the
members
in
writing
in
response
to
anything
that
may
have
been
brought
up
during
public
comment,
that
you
give
yourself
an
opportunity
to
do
that
if
you
find
it
prudent
and
necessary
to
clarify
if
there
is
anything
that
you
believe
was
not
fully
stated
and
or
there's
a
different
perspective.
A
So
with
that,
I
members,
I
appreciate
everybody's
participation
and
attentiveness
in
this
conversation
having
nothing
before
this
committee.
I
would
like
to
adjourn
in
honor
of
our
sergeant
of
arms,
mr
robin
bates.
Somebody
who
a
lot
of
people
in
this
building
saw
both
as
family
and
as
a
role
model.
Somebody
who
set
an
example
for
so
many
people.
I
do
this
respectfully
with
the
utmost
respect
for
the
family
and
those
of
you
who
may
not
have
the
blood
connection,
but
also
saw
him
as
family.
A
For
generations
to
come,
and
just
an
example
on
how
to
conduct
yourself
and
how
to
operate
yourself
in
such
a
professional,
respectful
manner,
it
was
a
tremendous
loss
for
this
building.
So
with
that,
we
will
adjourn
in
his
honor
members
will
be
back
here
tomorrow
morning
at
9am.
This
meeting
is
adjourned.