►
From YouTube: 2/8/2022 - Interim Retirement and Benefits Committee
Description
This is the first meeting of calendar year 2022. The agenda is not yet available.
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.
B
Thank
you
very
much
good
afternoon,
everyone.
I
will
go
ahead
and
call
the
interim
retirements
and
benefits
committee
meeting
to
order.
The
agenda
has
been
duly
posted.
We
will
start
out
with
a
public
comment
or
roll
call.
Miss
miss
kaufman.
If
you
would
go
ahead
and
do
the
roll
call.
Please.
C
B
Thank
you
so
much
chair,
carlton
and
members.
I
apologize
for
the
interruption.
We
are
now
back
live
to
the
broadcast
and
you
may
re-begin
at
public
comment
when
you're
ready.
Okay,
thank
you
very
much.
So
we
are
back
I'd
like
to
go
ahead
and
go
back
to
miss
kaufman.
I
believe
assemblywoman
kasama
is
now
present.
Is
that
correct
and
I'm
sure
that
is
correct?
B
Okay,
so
please
mark
assemblywoman
kasama
present
and
with
that
moving
forward,
we'll
go
to
public
comment
I'll
make
the
announcement
again
in
case
we
didn't
get
it
out
there
to
the
public.
Public
comment
will
be
limited
to
two
minutes
per
person.
The
access
number
to
call
in
was
posted
on
the
agenda.
You
can
also
make
public
comment
by
submitting
an
email
which
was
also
posted
on
the
agenda.
We'll
give
it
just
a
moment
for
folks
to
be
able
to
dial
in
and
then
we
will
go
to
public
comment
broadcast
services.
E
Doug
unger
unlv
chapter
president
and
government
affairs,
representative,
nevada,
faculty
alliance.
Thank
you,
chair
carlton,
and
the
committee
for
your
consideration.
This
is
the
season
of
the
great
resignation,
unprecedented
numbers
of
workers
are
quitting
their
jobs.
3.9
million
per
month,
reported
by
the
bureau
of
labor
statistics
and
nevada
is
also
experiencing
worker's
life,
including
menshi.
E
According
to
our
chancellor,
along
with
almost
all
state
offices,
understaffing
for
the
department
of
corrections
is
now
a
crisis
and
a
civil
rights
concern.
Among
the
reasons
for
the
loss
of
state
workers
are
inadequate.
Cola
increases
last
session
and
substandard
health
insurance
and
benefits
from
pandemic
budget
cuts
to
pebb
which
have
not
yet
been
restored.
E
The
state
took
back
25
million
in
its
employer
contribution
holiday,
the
first
time
the
legislature
has
swept
pep
in
this
way
and
not
paid
it
back,
and
state
contributions
are
at
least
20
million
per
year,
less
than
they
were
three
years
ago.
Out-Of-Pocket
maximums
are
now
5
000
for
an
individual
and
ten
thousand
for
fm,
which
feels
like
deliberate
punishment.
E
Life
insurance
is
cut
in
half
long-term
disability
insurance
is
eliminated
during
a
time
when,
because
of
the
risk
of
contracting
long-haul
covert
19,
the
likelihood
of
disability
has
increased.
We
have
repeatedly
asked
the
interim
finance
subcommittee
in
the
governor's
office
for
american
rescue
plan
funds
to
remedy
the
drastic
cuts
to
pets.
We've
been
told
no
by
the
powers
that
be
without
even
the
courtesy
of
an
explanation
live.
No
wonder
state
workers
are
leaving
their
job.
We
ask
you
please
to
do
all
you
can
to
restore
the
pep
budget
to
pre-pandemic
level.
F
F
And
I'm
the
executive
director
and
lobbyist
for
rpen,
the
retired
public
employees
of
nevada,
founded
in
1976,
our
pen
lobbies,
on
behalf
of
all
public
employees
in
nevada,
to
protect
the
pension
and
health
care
benefits
they
earn
through
their
public
service.
We
have
nearly
eight
thousand
dues
paying
members,
many
of
whom
are
retired
and
enjoying
that
well-deserved
pension.
F
You'll
hear
today
from
experts
at
nevada's,
public
employees,
retirement
system,
pers
and
public
employees
benefits
program,
pebb,
two
groups
that
our
pen
has
been
closely
aligned
with
since
our
inception,
executives
from
both
agencies
write
a
regular
column
in
our
member
newsletter.
That's
mailed
out
six
times
a
year
to
keep
all
of
our
members
up
to
date.
F
The
pandemic
over
the
last
two
years
have
had
drastic
impacts
on
pad
participants
who
have
seen
benefits
slashed,
as
you
heard
from
the
previous
caller,
including
life
insurance
and
long-term
disability,
and
now
pebb
is
going
to
impose
a
covid
surcharge
on
all
unvaccinated
state
employees
in
july.
While
we
understand
the
need
to
cover
additional
costs,
peb
has
incurred
because
of
covid.
We
don't
like
seeing
state
employees
face
additional
cost
increases,
especially
those
who
earn
entry
level
wages.
F
F
It
goes
without
saying
that
pers
continues
to
outperform
similar
size
pension
funds
with
their
conservative
investments
that
they'll
explain
during
today's
meeting,
but
there
are
some
groups
that
would
like
to
see
pers
reformed
from
a
defined
benefit
system
to
a
hybrid
defined
benefit,
slash
defined
contribution,
401k
for
new
hires.
Only
our
pen
has
testified
against
such
a
plan
before
and
with
another
legislative
session
ahead
next
year.
We
hope
our
legislators
will
continue
to
support
pers
and
keep
the
defined
benefit
system
in
place,
because,
what's
not
broken
need
not
be
fixed.
G
G
G
G
budgets
were
slashed
targeting
vulnerable
employees
with
chronic
conditions
with
the
out
with
the
high
out-of-pocket
maximums
or
those
with
future
disability,
with
the
elimination
of
the
long-term
disability
insurance,
which
is
just
cruel,
terror's
act
funds
reimburse
pebb
about
14
million
for
coveted
medical
claims
through
december
2021,
but
we
simply
don't
understand
why
american
rescue
plan
act.
Revenue
loss
funds
have
not
been
allocated
either
for
coveted
cost
prepared
or
to
restore
benefits,
at
least
for
fy,
with
state
gaming
and
room
tax
revenue
at
all
times
highs.
G
State
agencies,
including
pers
peb
and
corrections
as
well
as
nc,
are
having
great
difficulty,
hiring
and
keeping
employees
in
part
because
of
non-competitive
salaries
and
benefits.
Benefits
must
be
restored
if
the
state
is
to
have
high
qual,
have
the
high
quality
workforce
needed
to
achieve
the
goals
of
the
american
rescue
plan
act
and
the
state.
Thank
you.
B
J
I
too
was
not
present
at
that
meeting
so
by
just
I
will
abstain.
B
Then
I
believe
we
might
have
a
bit
of
an
issue,
because
that
would
be
three
and
three
so
miss
kaufman.
Is
it
necessary
for
members
that
we're
not
here
to
actually
abstain
on
a
vote
of
the
minutes
and
with
only
three
votes,
are
we
still?
Okay,
just
making
sure
we
clarify
everything?
C
Sarah
kaufman,
I
believe
that
you
are
okay,
but
we
do
have
our
legal
staff
eileen
o'brady
on
on
as
well.
If
she
would
be
willing
to
weigh
in.
A
B
Okay,
thank
you,
mr
thank
you
appreciate
that
just
want
to
make
sure
everyone
understood
so
with
that.
I
would
accept
a
motion
to
approve
the
minutes
of
the
december
16th
2020
meeting
from
miss
peters
and
a
second
from.
D
A
B
B
Any
in
opposition,
seeing
no
opposition,
I
believe,
miss
kasama
and
senator
seber's
ganzer
did
not
vote
senator
orange
all
did
so.
The
motion
passes
with
that.
We
can
move
on
to
item
number
four
item:
four:
is
the
public
employees,
retirement
system,
judicial
retirement
system
and
legislators
retirement
system?
I
believe
we
have
miss
lease.
C
Thank
you
good
afternoon,
madam
chairman
chair
members
of
the
committee,
I'm
tina
liss,
I'm
the
executive
officer
of
the
public
employees,
retirement
system
item
4.1,
beginning
on
page
45
of
your
packet,
outlines
the
executive
staff,
salary
modifications
approved
by
the
retirement
board
at
its
december
meeting
to
begin
in
fiscal
year.
2023,
pending
this
committee's
approval,
the
proposed
fiscal
year,
20
2023,
maximum
salaries
for
all
positions,
except
the
deputy
investment
officer
position,
reflect
the
maximum
salaries.
That's
previously
been
approved
by
this
committee
and
the
retirement
board.
C
C
The
deputy
investment
officer
position
was
created
in
the
2021
legislative
session
and
that
position
is
currently
being
paid
in
accordance
with
the
approved
budget
by
the
2021
legislature.
Should
the
committee
approve
the
salaries
as
fixed
by
the
retirement
board
pursuant
to
nrs
286
160,
a
one
percent
cola
would
be
applied
to
all
nine
statutory
positions.
B
A
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
so
my
since
it's
employer
paid.
That
means
that
no
contribution
will
be
made
by
the
employee
towards
this.
So
if
you're
paid
the
executive
officer,
for
example
the
171
146,
that's
their
net
amount
and
both
sides
of
hers
is
paid
by
the
state.
C
Latinos
for
the
record:
yes,
so
under
the
employer
pay
plan,
the
salary
has
been
reduced
for
the
employees
portion.
So
that's
why
you
will
see
the
we
have,
the
the
two
for
you,
the
20
fy
2022
and
fy2023.
So,
for
instance,
the
fy
2022
was
reduced
for
the
contribution
rate
increase
on
that
date.
So
what
you
see
is,
since
it's
been
reduced
for
the
contribution,
then
the
employer
pays
two
pers
the
employer's
portion
and
the
employee's
portion,
so
there
would
be
no
further
reduction
on
that
for
contributions
of
the
employees.
B
Not
seeing
any
other
questions
from
committee
members
with
that,
I
would
go
ahead
and
this
is
a
item
for
action,
so
we
will
be
taking
a
vote
on
this
item.
So
with
that
see
no
questions,
I
would
accept
a
motion
to
approve
this
item
from
miss
peters
and
a
second
from
senator
brooks
any
questions
or
comments.
B
C
Thank
you,
tina
list
executive
office
of
public
employees,
retirement
system,
item
4.2,
beginning
on
page
47
of
your
packet,
is
an
update
on
the
fiscal
year,
2021
actuarial
valuation
for
the
per
system.
The
retirement
board
by
policy
conducts
an
actuarial
valuation
to
monitor
the
assets
and
liabilities
associated
with
the
pension
plan
by
statute.
C
The
evaluation
must
be
conducted
on
on
a
biennial
basis.
By
practice,
the
board
does
it
on
an
annual
basis.
The
statute
requires
a
contribution
rate
or
potential
contribute
rate
changes
based
on
the
actuarial
valuation
that
is
conducted
in
the
even
numbered
year
for
implementation
in
an
odd
number
year.
So,
for
instance,
this
is
an
odd
numbered
year
valuation.
C
This
does
not
affect
contribution
rates,
so
this
is
the
annual
valuation
that
the
board
does
to
keep
up
with
the
projections,
but
this
is
not
a
valuation
that
is
required
by
statute
now
to
project
the
costs
and
liabilities
of
the
system.
The
board
adopts
assumptions
about
future
events
that
affect
the
amount
and
timing
of
the
benefits
as
part
of
the
valuation
process.
Our
actual
experience
is
compared
against
this
projected
experience
and
any
deviations
are
recognized
as
gains
and
losses
in
the
valuation
process.
C
Now
the
use
of
appropriate
assumptions
is
really
important
to
monitoring
and
maintaining
adequate
funding
to
review
assumptions.
The
requirement
board
conducts
an
experienced
study
through
its
independent
actuary
every
four
to
six
years
in
september,
the
system's
actuarial
firm
siegel
performed
in
an
experienced
study
in
accordance
with
the
retirement
board's
monitoring
and
reporting
policy.
C
This
study
covered
the
period
july
2016
through
june
2020,
based
on
trends
in
the
data.
The
actuary
recommended
modifications
to
certain
actuarial
assumptions
which
the
board
approved
at
their
september
16
2021
meeting.
These
assumptions
were
utilized
in
preparing
the
valuation
that,
for
the
date,
ended
june,
30
2021.
C
The
demographic
assumptions
that
were
modified
as
a
result
of
the
experience
study
include
retirement
rates,
mortality,
termination
rates
and
disability
rates.
Economic
assumptions
that
were
modified
include
the
investment
return,
assumption
inflation,
individual
salary
increases
and
active
member
payroll.
C
C
Generally,
the
changes
to
the
assumptions
in
the
2021
experience
study
had
increasing
effects
on
the
on
the
actuarial
rates.
Changes
in
the
payroll
growth,
investment
return,
retirement
rates
and
mortality
assumptions
will
likely
have
the
largest
impacts
on
actuarial
calculated
rates.
The
increasing
effects
of
the
assumption
changes
were
magnified
when
applied
to
the
2021
valuation,
because
we
saw
negative
payroll
growth
during
fiscal
year
2021..
C
C
Now,
as
part
of
the
experience
study,
the
retirement
board
considered
a
recommendation
of
the
system's
independent
actuary
to
adopt
an
actuarial
contribution,
phase-in
approach
for
the
contribution
rate
impact
associated
with
these
assumption
changes.
At
its
october
meeting,
the
board
adopted
this
actuarial
approach
for
use,
beginning
with
fiscal
year
2021
valuation.
C
This
approach
smooths
the
impacts
of
the
assumption
changes
over
four
years,
similar
to
the
five-year
asset,
smoothing
that
we
have
in
place
at
the
system.
This
actuarial
method
allows
the
liability
changes
from
the
assumption
changes
only
so
just
from
the
assumption.
Changes
from
the
experience
study
to
be
recognized
in
a
similar
manner,
as
our
assets
are
recognized
in
that
time
period,
so
that
we
don't
have
a
disconnect
between
the
two
so
that
we
are
not
smoothing
the
assets
but
taking
in
the
liability
changes
for
assumptions
all
at
once.
C
The
2021
valuation
brought
together
a
unique
set
of
circumstances.
A
large
investment
gain
substantial
assumption,
changes
from
the
experience,
study
and
negative
payroll
growth
that
make
it
difficult
for
us
to
predict
where
the
contribution
rates
will
be
in
the
next
few
rate-setting
years.
We
can
predict
that
there
will
be
upward
pressure
on
the
rates
because
of
the
assumption
changes.
However,
because
of
the
other
factors
in
play
right
now,
we
cannot
predict
where
those
will
be
by
the
next
valuation.
C
In
addition,
the
system
experienced
a
large
investment
gain
over
the
system's
assumed
rate
of
return,
but
due
to
the
system's
asset,
smoothing
only
20
percent
of
that
gain
has
been
recognized
so
far,
so
the
2021
valuation
only
recognizes
20
percent
of
that
gain,
and
then
we
recognize
20
percent
per
year
until
it's
fully
recognized
over
a
five-year
period.
This
has
left
the
system
with
about
7.5
billion
dollars
in
unrecognized
investment
gains
that
will
be
recognized
in
the
next
four
years,
with
future
investment
gains
and
losses.
C
Now
the
charts
on
page
51
and
52
in
your
package
show
the
changes
in
active
membership
in
the
regular
and
the
police
fire
fund.
The
2021
actuary
evaluation
shows
an
overall
decrease
in
active
members
from
one
hundred
and
eleven
thousand,
eight
hundred
and
fifteen
to
a
hundred
and
six
thousand
nine
hundred
and
ten.
That
is
a
significant
decrease
in
our
active
membership.
C
C
In
that
case,
the
regular
fund
increased
with
no
assets
moving
and
no
rate
impact
smoothing
would
be
a
little
bit
lower
than
the
actually
calculated
rate.
The
police
fire
fund
would
be
a
little
higher
than
the
actuarially
calculated
rates.
Part
of
why
we're
showing
you
kind
of
these
different
scenarios
is
to
kind
of
show
the
impact
of
the
unrecognized
gains
and
the
assumption
changes
and
how,
until
we,
unless
until
we
have
next
year's
experience,
is
difficult
to
predict
where
the
contributions
will
go
on
the
rate
setting
year.
C
The
as
I
said,
the
ultimate
impact
will
be
not
known
until
fiscal
year
2022
and
then
somewhat
beyond
that,
depending
on
how
the
liability
changes,
roll
in
and
also
depending
on
how
the
seven
and
a
half
billion
dollars
in
unrecognized
gains
roll
in.
If,
for
instance,
we
meet
our
investment
assumptions
right
on,
then
all
of
that
gain
will
be
able
to
be
rolled
in
and
that
will
have
a
significant
impact
on
where
those
rates
go.
C
If
we
ultimately
have
to
net
those
gains
with
losses
in
the
future,
then
they
will
obviously
not
have
as
big
an
impact
on
the
rates
themselves.
I
did
want
to
let
this
committee
know
that
the
board
is
working
with
the
system's
actuary.
Under
these
interesting
circumstances,
we
have,
under
its
constitutional
authority,
to
review
all
actuarial
methods
and
assumptions
to
ensure
that
the
ultimate
recognition
of
the
assets
and
changes
in
liabilities
are
done
in
an
actually
appropriate
and
responsible
manner.
C
C
As
you
can
see,
the
gain
there
were
gains
in
investment
returns,
salary
increases
and
normal
costs,
but
those
were
more
than
offset
by
the
losses
due
to
payroll
growth
contributions.
Less
than
expected,
post-retirement
increases
more
than
expected
and
the
assumption
changes
the
estimated
time
period
until
both
plans
are
fully
funded,
continues
to
decline
based
on
the
2021
valuation.
The
amortization
period
for
the
regular
fund
is
at
15.4
years
and
the
police
fire
fund
15.3
years.
Those
are
both
from
june
30.
2021.
C
page
58
contains
information
on
the
actuarial,
funded
ratio
of
the
system.
The
actuarial
funded
ratio
is
based
on
the
actuarial
value
of
assets,
and
this
is
to
smooth
those
ups
and
downs
in
the
investment
market.
The
actuarial
liability
declined
a
little
bit
to
75.3
for
regular
members,
75.6
for
police
fire
and
in
total
75.4.
C
C
C
The
difference
is
on
the
market
value
of
assets.
The
total
unfunded
liability
is
about
nine
billion
dollars
on
an
actuarial
value
of
assets.
It's
about
16
billion
dollars,
so
that's
kind
of
where
we
are
at
with
this
actuarial
evaluation.
Again,
it
is
a
non-rate
setting
year
and
we
will
have
a
lot
more
information
as
to
the
rate
setting
valuation
once
we
hit
the
end
of
our
current
fiscal
year
on
june
30
2022,
and
with
that
I'd,
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions
on
this
valuation.
B
H
Thank
you
chair,
thank
you
so
much,
and
I
thank
you
for
this
breadth
of
information
new
to
me
to
be
diving
into
this,
and
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
I
have
all
the
information
that
you
were
talking
about.
Can
you
go
over
again?
What
factors
you
may
have
said
were
contributing
to
the
actuarially
determined
contribution
rates
being
greater
than
the
statutory
rates
for
the
2123
biennium.
C
Tina
list
for
the
record:
yes,
so
each
valuation
period,
we
measure
the
experience,
so
our
gains
and
losses
against
our
assumptions.
So,
for
instance,
we
assume
there
will
be
certain
number
of
salary
or
a
certain
value
for
salary
increases.
We
assume
there
will
be
a
certain
amount
of
payroll
growth.
We
assume
there
will
be
a
certain
number
of
deaths.
C
We
are
assumed,
there
will
be
a
certain
number
of
retirement
rates,
and
so,
when
we
do
evaluation
each
year,
we
see
how
our
experience
is
against
what
actually
are
against
our
assumptions
and
we
can
have
gains
and
losses
there.
That
is
not,
however,
the
biggest
contributing
factor
in
this
particular
evaluation.
C
So
in
this
valuation
we
had
an
experienced
study
and
we
do
those
approximately
four
to
six
years
and
what
those
do
is
we
take
a
look
back
and
we
say:
okay,
we're.
How
are
how's
our
mortality
assumption
working?
How
is
our
payroll
growth
assumption
working
and
if
we
find
that
our
experience
is
deviating
consistently
from
those
assumptions,
then
we
will
make
changes
to
the
assumptions
and
when
you
make
changes
to
those
assumptions
that
will
ultimately
raise
or
lower
the
cost
of
the
benefits
one.
C
A
good
example
is:
if
we
change
the
mortality
assumption,
we
assume,
for
instance,
everyone
now
is
going
to
live
a
year
longer
than
we
previously
assumed.
Well,
that
will
raise
our
costs,
because
now
we
assume
we're
going
to
pay
benefits
for
a
year
longer
than
we
previously
thought
we
were
going
to,
and
this
could
be
for
people
who
are
already
retired.
This
would
be
for
people
that
are
currently
working
so
that
can
contribute
to
your
unfunded
liability.
It
can
contribute
to
your
normal
cost.
C
To
more
truly
reflect
the
experience
that
we've
been
seeing
over
the
five-year
period,
the
the
biggest
changes,
I
think
from
a
cost
perspective,
is
the
fact
that
our
payroll
growth
is
lower
than
assumed,
which
means
we
haven't
been
receiving
the
contributions
that
we
assumed
we
would
be
receiving
and
our
retirement
rates.
We
had
to
make
a
a
significant
adjustment
to
the
rates
of
retirements,
based
on
the
experience,
the
recent
experience
and
when
you
assume
people
either
retire
earlier
or
more
expensively
than
you
assumed,
then
that
increased
our
cost.
C
So
all
that
going
into
it.
That's
how
we
project
the
ultimate
cost,
which
we
then
bring
that
back
to
the
contribution
rate.
So
that
is
why
the
contribution
rates
in
this
valuation
would
show
an
increase,
because
we
essentially
have
had
to
true
up
those
assumptions
which
then
makes
the
benefits
that
we're
going
to
to
pay
somewhat
more
expensive,
based
on
the
assumption
themselves.
H
Thank
you,
so
I'm
trying
to
wrap
my
head
around
how
you
use
this
experience
to
to
protect
and
coming
from
an
engineering
field.
Is
this
a
statistical
analysis
that
you
use,
or
is
it
less
qualitative
and
more
quant
or
less
quantitative
and
more
qualitative
in
how
you
interpret
those
experience
values?
I
guess
what
I'm
wondering
is:
do
you
do
you
utilize,
like
outlier
theories
and
ways
of
addressing
some
of
these
factors
that
are
really
unique
to
our
peri
this
period
of
time,
the
last
four
to
six
years?
H
Or
is
this
this
really
just
a
point
in
time?
Look
at
those
six
years
and
you
use
everything
that's
involved
in
it.
C
Tina
list
for
the
record:
it's
an
actuarial
analysis
done
by
the
independent
actuary
that
the
board
hires,
so
the
nuts
and
bolts
of
it
really
is
more
of
a
question
to
be
answered
by
the
actuary,
but
kind
of
a
higher
level
view
I
think,
of
how
they
perform
that
they
do
have
certain
actuarial
standards
of
practice,
of
course,
that
they
need
to
follow
when
they
do
these,
but
the
length
of
time
that
they
look
at
the
experience
study
covers
a
five-year
period,
but
depending
on
the
nature
of
the
assumption,
they
may
take
a
longer
look,
for
instance,
economic
assumptions,
which
would
be
rate
of
inflation.
C
Our
investment
rate
of
return
payroll
growth,
those
they
tend
to
take
a
longer
look
than
just
the
five
year
period.
Demographic
assumptions.
You
know
your
mortality
that
that's
the
big
one,
the
rate
of
a
retirement,
they
take
a
shorter
term
look,
and
so
they
look
at
how
far
we've
deviated
from
the
experience
and
then
using
their
actuarial
methods.
C
They
then
place
the
assumption
so,
for
instance,
on
the
mortality
assumption
they
will
analyze.
We
have
a
big
enough
data
set
from
pers
that
they
do
analyze.
Our
our
data
and
our
mortality
data,
and
then
they
choose
the
published
mortality
table
that
most
closely
fits
where
we
are
seeing
our
our
the
longevity
of
our
members.
C
It's
historically,
I
don't
know
if
it's
interesting
to
anyone,
but
me,
but
historically
nevada
public
employees
were
lagging
most
mortality
tables
in
which
means
that
our
employees
generally
died
earlier
than
you
would
see
in
most
public
employees.
So
we
would
have
to
customize
the
tables.
We
are
seeing
that
not
quite
as
much
and
we
don't
have
to
customize
the
mortality
tables
quite
as
much
anymore.
So
that's
how
they
come
to
mortality
table
with
the
retirement
rates.
C
They
look
at
who's
retiring
when
they're
retiring
and
then
use
that
data
to
come
up
with
a
with
an
assumption.
So
it's
really
dependent
on
the
assumption
how
the
actuary
arrives
at
that
the
economic
assumptions
they
use,
for
instance,
for
the
investment
rate
of
return.
They
use
projections
from
consultants
so
a
little
bit
more
forward-looking
and
inflation.
They
do
a
little
bit
that
way
as
well.
H
I
agree
that
it's
really
interesting
and
I
I
would
be
interested
in
seeing
kind
of
the
nuts
and
bolts,
but
also
how
the
board
is
working
with
the
actuary
to
kind
of
address
some
of
these
anomalous
issues
that
we've
seen
over
the
last
couple
of
years.
I
don't
know
if
there's
a
follow-up
that
we
can
get
but
we'll
we
work
with
staff
or
have
staff
work
with
you
to
see
if
we
can
follow
up
on
some
of.
I
Yes,
thank
you
chair,
so
this
is
my
first
meeting
on
the
committee.
So
just
a
couple
large
picture
questions
as
well
just
trying
to
understand
from
a
timing
standpoint.
So
it
do.
We
have
an
actuary
valuation,
every
june
30th
and
then
so
next
year,
we're
going
to
set
the
contribution
rates
and
that
will
be
effective
for
what
calendar
year
january,
1st
just
wondering
how
the
timing
normally
goes.
C
So
the
valuation
that
so
we
essentially
the
valuation
is
as
of
june
30.
In
this
case
it
would
be
2022.
C
The
board
does
not
receive
it
until
about
november,
because
we
have
to
cut
the
data
as
of
june
30,
and
then
the
actuary
needs
a
certain
amount
of
time
to
to
work
with
the
data.
So
in
the
in
november
we
received
the
valuation
november
of
2022
and
then,
if
the
actuarial
rates
deviate
from
the
current
statutory
rates
by
more
than
half
a
percent
on
the
upside,
then
the
statute
requires
the
contribution
rates,
be
increased
to
equal
the
actuarial
rate
within
rounded
to
the
nearest
one
quarter,
and
that
would
be
in
effect
july
1st
of
2023.
C
So
the
rates
go
into
so
possible
rate.
Changes
are,
are
come
in
july,
first
of
odd,
numbered
calendar
years,
so
they
will
be
in
effect
whatever
they
are,
whether
they
don't
change
or
they
do
change.
They
would
be
in
effect
for
two
years
and
then
the
next
look
would
be
july.
1St
2025,
under
the
current
statutory
mechanism,.
I
And
and
under
the
current
statute,
what
you're
saying
it
can
only
book
a
quarter
point
per
statute?
Was
it
a
quarter.
C
Point
or
half
point
no
excuse
me,
so
if
the
actual
so
if
the
rate
the
actuary
has
in
the
valuation
is
more
than
half
a
percent
over
the
cont,
the
statutory
rate,
the
statutory
rate
will
move
all
the
way
to
the
actuarial
rate,
whatever
that
is,
but
then,
whatever
that
is
you
round
to
the
nearest
quarter
of
a
percent
so
that
we
don't
have
odd
numbers
on
the
contribution
rate.
So.
G
C
Is
no
no
collar
on
that
on
on
the
upside,
there
is
a
little
bit
on
the
downside,
but
it's
just
rounded
to
the
nearest
quarter
of
a
percent.
I
understand.
I
So
it
moves
up
to
the
actual
actuarial
rate
chair.
May
I
follow
up
with
sure,
and
so
so
obviously
you
know
I'm
looking
at
this
assumption
here,
we've
got
inflation
at
2.75,
it
was
reduced
to
2.5,
so
all
of
that
will
be
taken
into
account.
The
next
go
around
because
we
have
inflation
increasing.
So
I
think,
based
on
what
you
said,
all
those
assumptions
will
change.
My
other
question
was
regarding
the
smoothing.
So
are
you
using
just
an
average
of
the
past
five
years?
I
Are
you
using
a
rolling
five-year
average,
particularly
for
investment
gains?
We've
had
a
banner
year,
which
is
great,
which
helps
the
entire
fund
here
yeah.
I
don't
think
we'll
have
that
going
on
again
this
year.
That
would
be
nice,
but
I
don't
think
so.
So
you
know
is
that
a
rolling
five-year
average
just
a
straight
five-year
average.
C
So
you
have
five
years
20
of
each
of
those
gains
or
losses
so
that
you
essentially
you're
averaging
over
the
five-year
period,
so,
for
instance
with
in
the
valuation
itself
right
now,
we
know
what
the
gain
or
loss
layer
is
for
next
year.
So
we
have
a
combined
number
for
20
of
the
last
four
years
and
then
the
next
piece
to
put
in
is
20
percent
of
the
of
the
gain
of
loss
or
loss
in
fiscal
year
2022,
and
that's
what
we'll
roll
in.
So
it's
essentially
20
of
each
of
the
previous
five
years.
H
Air
I
just
wanted
to
piggyback
on
the
discussion
on
the
the
smoothing,
so
I
kind
of
got
from
your
description
that
our
investment
return.
Smoothing
is
five
years
which
she's
already
started,
and
so
the
contribution
smoothing
would
be
four
years
does
that
is
that
to
marry
it
up
so
that
the
smoothings
would
happen
over
the
same
period
of
time.
C
If
it's
a
similar
amount
of
time,
but
the
four
years
for
the
smoothing
of
the
liability
changes
or
the
impact
to
the
contribution
rate,
the
liability
changes
for
the
assumption
changes
that
was
recommended
as
a
four-year
period
by
the
actuary
to
match
the
periods
between
experience
studies.
So
we
potentially
will
change
assumptions
every
four
years,
so
they
wanted
to
match
the
four-year
period
to
roll
in
the
impact.
So
essentially,
once
we
fully
roll
in
the
impact,
that's
when
we
will
be
doing
another
experience
study,
it
just
happens
to
be
within
a
year
of
the
assets.
H
Okay,
I
think
one
of
the
concerns
that
I
have
is
the
folks
who
are
involved
in
during
these
smoothing
periods
right
because
we
have
such
a
kind
of
transition
period
of
employment
right
now
at
the
state
that
we
have
folks
who
would
be
involved
in
the
first
couple
of
years
and
then
more
folks
who
would
be
involved
in
only
the
last
couple
of
years.
If
you
know
hiring
takes
two
years
to
get
some
of
these
positions
filled.
H
C
Tina
lists
for
the
record,
we
haven't
done
an
analysis
of
that
per
se
other
than
we
look
at
matching.
You
know
the
amortization
period
to
working
careers
more
so
for
those
that
stay
with
the
public
employment,
not
as
much
for
those
moving
in
and
out
on
the
short
term,
and
so
to
answer
your
question.
No,
we
haven't
done
an
analysis
quite
like
that,
but,
as
I
said,
the
board
is
in
the
actual,
are
looking
at
a
number
of
things
and
we
again
are
very
interested
in
working.
You
know
any.
B
B
There's
no
longer
that
longer
institutional
knowledge
at
the
state
and
it
seems
to
have
the
last
the
fiscal
crisis
before
this
last
one
did
some
damage
and
we
didn't
really
have
a
chance
to
recuperate
from
that,
and
then
we
ended
up
in
the
situation
that
we've
been
in
the
last
couple
of
years.
So
it's
it's!
It's
been
tough
to
be
able
to
get
the
folks
back.
B
If
you
don't
have
state
employees
paying
into
the
per
system,
you
can't
get
the
system
fully
funded,
so
I'm
going
to
preempt
the
question
because
I
know
someone
out
there
in
the
world
is
going
to
ask.
If
you
have
all
these
extra
gains
as
they
see
them
and
you
have
a
different
term
for
it.
The
questions
from
them
will
always
be.
Why
don't
we
just
put
it
towards
the
unfunded
liability
and
lower
that
15
years
down?
So
I
think
you've
addressed
it
with
the
answering
of
your
smoothing.
C
Thank
you,
madam
chair
tlist,
for
the
record,
and
certainly
there
are
retirement
systems
that
what
you're
suggesting
is
that
we
go
to
a
full
market
value
of
assets
to
determine
the
the
the
funded
ratio
of
the
of
the
system
to
determine
contribution
rates
and
the
caution
that
you
would
have
going
to
a
full
market
value
of
assets
is
that
investment
markets
are
very
volatile
and
it
is
a
very
good
thing
when
you
have
an
unrecognized
gain
it
asset.
C
Smoothing
is,
is
also
a
very
good
thing
when
you
have
losses,
so
the
actuary
will
tell
you
that,
if
you're
going
to
smooth
or
not
smooth,
you
have
to
do
it
on
the
upside
and
the
downside,
and
so,
if
someone
were
to
what
you're
suggesting
again
is
going
to
market
value
of
assets,
which
is
fine.
C
However,
you
have
to
be
able
to
ride
those
time
periods
when
you
have
large
market
losses,
and
you
would
have
to
ride
those
in
a
way
where
contributions
could
be
extremely
volatile
and
could
shoot
up
and
down
with
those
markets,
and
so
that
would
be
the
cautionary
tale
on.
That
is
that
it
may
very
well
happen
that
if
we
have
a
loss
on
the
investments
in
the
next
year
or
two,
that
those
unrecognized
gains
will
get
netted
and
they
never
roll
in.
C
But
what
also
won't
roll
in
is
the
loss
that
they
got
netted
with
that's
kind
of
just
what
how
we
would
answer.
That
is
that
it
would
make
your
contribution
rates
really
rather
volatile
and
probably
not
in
a
way
that
would
make
it
comfortable
for
your
employees
and
your.
B
B
They
can
plan
and
a
benefit
to
the
state
so
that
we
can
budget
knowing
that
we'll
there's
going
to
be
good
years
and
bad
years
to
try
to
smooth
things
out
for
folks.
So
thank
you
very
much.
I
appreciate
that.
Are
there
any
other
questions
from
any
other
committee
members
on
this
particular
item
at
this
time
here?
Yes,
I'm
sorry,
I
just
saw
your
hand.
I
apologize
with
a
small
phone
screen,
it's
hard
to
see
sometimes.
A
Yeah,
so
thank
you,
miss
list
for
for
the
information
that
you
provided
and
the
plan
is
in
much
better
shape
than
it's
been
for
probably
decades.
So
I
appreciate
the
work
and
I
think
the
smoothing
is
the
right
way
to
go,
because
we
would
have
more
much
more
volatile
rates,
kind
of
just
circling
back
to
the
four
years
versus
five
years,
because
they're
not
they're
not
matched
up.
A
As
far
as
the
new
approach
when
it
comes
to
assumptions
in
our
in
the
memo
that
you
sent
us,
it
said
usually
those
experience
evaluations
are
every
four
to
six
years,
and
this
time
it
happened
before.
Do
you
anticipate
that
that
smoothing
of
those
assumptions
will
change
to
five
years?
If
we
do,
if
we
go
five
years
between
analyses
or
if
the
experience
is
over
a
five
year
period
or
six
year
period
versus
before,
will
that
automatically
kind
of
trigger
it
to
be
a
different
time
period?
Based
on
the
analysis.
C
C
I
think
that
that
is
also
one
of
the
things
that
the
board
will
be
looking
at
with
the
actuary
over
the
course
of
this
year
or
the
time
period
between
now
and
the
next
valuation,
because
it
may
be
that
it
makes
more
sense
to
look
at
it
from
a
five
or
a
six
year
perspective.
If
that's
what
we
do
for
experience
studies,
I
will
note
the
best
practices
is
generally
five
years.
I
believe
on
experience
studies
we
have
four
to
six
years
because
we
like
to
do
the
experience
studies
in
non-rate
setting
years.
C
So
that's
why
we
need
to
keep
it
on
an
even
numbered
cycle,
either
four
or
six,
and
so
that
is
certainly
one
of
the
things
I
think
we'll
be
looking
at
is
four
year
the
right
period.
Could
it
be
a
six
year
period
or
a
five
year
period
to
exactly
match
the
asset?
Smoothing
again,
that's
just
what
they
recommended
for
this
go
around
for
the
valuation,
and
we
will
be
looking
at
that
scenario
as
well
with
the
actuary
before
the
next
valuation.
C
A
I
appreciate
that,
and
I
know
the
rates
are
high
and
I
think
it's
because
we've
been
trying
to
catch
up
for
so
many
years
and
I
think
the
smoothie
is
going
to
help
with
that,
because
we
did
have
this
this
year
with
a
huge
return,
but
by
smoothing
it
if
this
year
is
not
as
great
or
the
next
year,
it's
going
to
help
as
far
as
making
sure
the
contribution
rates
aren't
up
and
down
as
much.
We
don't
have
that
roller
coaster.
So
thank
you.
B
Any
other
questions
from
any
other
committee
members
at
this
time,
I'm
not
seeing
any.
This
is
just
a
report,
so
I
don't
believe
there's
any
action
required
on
this
particular
item.
So
I
believe
we
can
move
on
to
the
next
item,
which
is
the
report
on
the
evaluation
of
the
judicial
retirement
system.
C
Madam
chair
members
of
the
committee
tina
list
executive
officer
of
the
public
employees
retirement
system
item
4.3
in
your
packet
beginning
on
page
61,
is
an
update
on
the
fiscal
year,
2021
actuarial
evaluation
for
the
judicial
retirement
system.
Again,
the
board
by
policy
conducts
an
annual
actuarial
evaluation
for
the
judicial
retirement
system
and
like
pers,
the
rate
setting
mechanism
is
once
every
two
years
making
this
a
non-rate
setting
valuation
for
the
judicial
retirement
system.
C
So
if
the
local
jurisdiction
has
opted
not
to
participate
in
pert
or
it
has
never
opted
to
participate
in
jrs,
their
judicial
officials
are
still
under
pers,
unlike
pers
jrs,
or
the
digital
retirement
system
is
not
a
cost-sharing
plan,
which
means
the
state
has
its
own
costs
and
the
local
jurisdictions
have
their
own
costs
based
on
their
assets
and
their
liabilities
and
their
memberships
pages.
63
and
64
in
your
package
show
demographic
information
for
both
states
and
non-state
judges
generally.
C
C
C
C
The
state
makes
the
unfunded
liability
payment
as
a
lump
sum
amount
once
a
year.
So
this
page
shows
you
both
the
percentage
of
payroll
we
get
from
the
judges
and
also
the
lumps
on
payment
that
the
state
pays
on
the
unfunded
liability.
I
will
note
that
there
is
an
error
on
this
page.
The
current
statutory
rate
for
the
judges
is
22.0
percent.
C
I
mean
yes,
22.0,
not
22.5,
which
makes
the
contribution
difference.
22.5
makes
the
contribution
difference,
0.89,
not
point
three,
nine.
We
apologize
for
that
error
on
that
page.
C
The
amortization
payment
that
was
calculated
for
this
fiscal
year
was
one
million
three
hundred.
Fifty
thousand
that's
compared
to
one
million
three
hundred
twenty
two
thousand
from
the
prior
year
valuation,
so
the
contribution
requirements
for
the
state
judges
if
this
were
a
rate
setting
year,
would
be
pretty
comparable
with
last
valuation
and
then
page
67
shows
the
contribution
requirements
for
the
local
jurisdiction
judges
in
aggregate
the
actuary
of
funded
ratio.
The
judicial
retirement
system
as
a
whole
decreased
from
94.4
percent
to
92
percent.
C
However,
the
funded
ratio
on
a
market
value
basis
increased
from
94
to
105
104.5
percent,
the
unfunded
liability
on
an
actuarial
value
of
assets
increased.
However,
the
jrs
has
unrecognized
gains
of
21
million,
which
is
larger
than
the
unfunded
actuarial
accrued
liability.
So,
in
other
words,
if
this
fund
were
to
go
to
a
market
value
basis,
this
would
they
would
be
in
an
overfunded
situation
and
would
not
have
an
unfunded
liability
and,
with
that
I'd,
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
B
C
Sorry
tina
list
for
the
record
item
4.4
in
your
packet
beginning
on
page
69,
is
an
update
on
the
fiscal
year,
2021
actuary
evaluation
for
the
legislators
retirement
system.
Again,
the
even
numbered
fiscal
year.
Evaluation
for
a
legislative
retirement
system
determines
the
contributions
of
the
state
for
this
system.
Since
this
is
an
odd
numbered
year,
evaluation.
C
This
does
not
affect
contribution
rates.
The
provisions
of
the
legislators
retirement
system
allows
legislators
to
opt
out
of
participation
in
the
system.
In
2021
we
saw
the
active
membership
decrease
from
32
members
to
27
members.
The
number
of
retirees
decreased
from
56
to
55,
while
the
overall
number
of
beneficiaries,
which
include
survivors,
decreased
from
73
to
70..
C
The
actuarial
unfunded
liability
decreased
from
199
000
to
61
000,
and
the
effective
amortization
period
is
0.9
years
beginning
on
page
70.
In
your
packet
is
demographic
and
funding
information
for
the
legislators
retirement
system.
On
page
71,
you
might
notice
that
the
amortization
payment
that
was
calculated
is
actually
larger
than
the
entire
actually
unfunded
liability.
C
This
is
a
function
of
how
the
layers
or
the
amortization
method
works,
and
we
will
be
working
with
our
actuary
to
look
at
alternatives
to
that
if
next
year.
The
case
is
that
the
amortization
payment
exceeds
the
entire
unfunded
liability
and,
again
that's
a
function
of
the
market
value
of
assets
having
those
unrecognized
gains.
B
C
Yes,
ma'am,
I'm
sure,
that's
one,
that
I
look
forward
to
every
year
as
well.
B
C
C
You
steve
edmonds
investment
officer
will
present
this.
L
L
Beginning
on
page,
I
believe
75
of
your
packet
titled
investment
results,
which
summarizes
investment
returns
for
all
three
funds
for
various
time
periods
through
the
2021
fiscal
year.
The
first
column
on
the
left
depicts
returns
for
the
most
recent
fiscal
year,
which,
by
any
measure
was
an
exceptional
year
for
returns.
L
Per's
portfolio
generated
a
27.3
percent
net
of
fee
return,
which
represents
per
second
strongest
fiscal
year
on
record
pers
portfolio
finished
the
year
with
58.3
billion
dollars
in
assets,
which
was
an
11.7
billion
dollar
increase
over
the
prior
fiscal
year.
L
Over
the
last
37
years,
pers
has
generated
a
9.6
average
annual
return
net
of
all
fees.
Last
fiscal
year
this
year,
2021
the
legislature's
fund
re
produced
a
return
of
27.7
in
and
the
ended.
The
period
with
5.7
million
dollars
in
assets
and
the
judicial
fund
finished
the
2021
fiscal
year
with
a
27.6
return
and.
A
L
Million
in
assets
as
of
june
30th,
the
following
page
page
76,
titled,
pers
annual
performance
details,
pers
investment
returns
for
each
of
the
last
37
fiscal
years.
The
horizontal
line
across
the
middle
of
the
page
depicts
pers,
long-term
actuarial,
assumed
rate
of
return,
which
was
7.5
percent
through
the
2021
fiscal
year.
However,
as
I
was
was
noted
earlier
today,
that
was
one
of
the
assumptions
that
the
at
the
recommendation
of
pers
actuary
was
reduced
again
on
the
going
forward.
L
Over
the
last
37
years,
fers
has
delivered
a
9.6
percent
net
if
you
return
on
average.
However,
in
11
of
those
years
the
individual
year,
return
was
well
below
that
long-term
objective,
and
I
think
that
this
pattern
of
individual
years
and
midterm
and
midterm
periods
with
returns
both
well
above
and
below
that
long-term
assumption
should
be
expected
going
forward.
L
The
next
few
pages
depict
the
same
information
for
the
the
legislators
and
judicial
funds
and
then
moving
on
to
page
79
of
the
packet
which
details
per's
investment
strategy,
which
is
in
fact
unique
in
the
industry,
in
that
we
employ
a
much
simpler
approach
with
a
larger
allocation
to
high
quality,
publicly
traded,
u.s
stocks,
and
we
own
only
us
government
treasury
bonds
in
our
fixed
income
allocation.
L
To
my
knowledge,
we
are
the
only
large
public
pension
fund
in
the
industry
that
utilizes
a
hundred
percent
indexed
management
across
all
of
our
publicly
traded
asset
classes.
L
One
of
the
byproducts
of
our
simple,
low-cost
or
simple
approach
is
that
we
are
one
one
of
if
not
the
lowest
cost
large
public
pension
fund
fund
funds
out
there
in
terms
of
investment
management
fees,
pers
investment
management
fees
on
annual
basis,
we
save
approximately
240
million
241
million
dollars
a
year
relative
to
a
comparable
sized
large
public
pension
fund
and
their
more
complex
structures.
L
In
addition
to
being
low-cost.
First,
simple
approach
has
produced
returns
that
have
been
competitive
relative
to
the
industry
over
the
years
over
the
last
three
five,
seven
10
and
20-year
time
periods,
purge
returns,
rank
within
the
top
20
or
15th
percentile,
or
better
over
of
large
public
pension
funds
and
for
a
number
of
those
periods
well
within
the
top
decile
of
other
large
public
funds.
We
certainly
don't
expect
to
be
in
the
top
of
the
database
each
and
every
year.
L
However,
we
remain
confident
that
per
simple
low-cost
approach
will
remain
competitive
over
longer
time
periods.
Now,
my
report
today
is
is
provides
an
update
through
the
most
recent
fiscal
year
end.
I
wanted
to
take
an
opportunity
to
write
a
quick
update
on
performance
through
through
today
in
the
2022
fiscal
year.
As
of
this
afternoon,
pers
portfolio
is
up
approximately
four
percent,
with
right
around
60
billion
dollars
in
assets.
L
However,
given
the
the
the
low
level
of
interest
rates,
the
fact
that
the
market
is
now
seeing
a
removal
of
some
of
the
fiscal
monetary
accommodation
that
that
has
flooded
the
system
with
liquidity
over
the
last
couple
years,
it
wouldn't
be
surprising
to
see
returns
moderate
over
the
over
the
next
few
years
in
the
midterm
period.
L
But
with
that
that
concludes
my
prepared
remarks
and
I'd
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
H
Yeah,
thank
you
for
bringing
up
that
last
bit
about
where
we
are
so
far
this
year
in
the
financial
markets.
I
was
wondering
what
that
impact
looked
like
to
hers,
but
it
is
kind
of
heartening
to
know
that
we
have.
We
have
a
pretty
good
investment
strategy
that
looks
to
be
a
little
less
volatile
than
I
was
expecting,
given
the
the
turn
in
the
market.
H
So
if
there's
any
additional
information
you
want
to
share
about
where
we
are,
I
would
appreciate
that
if
you
want
to
stand
with
what
you
said,
that's
also
great,
but
I'm
just
really
curious
about
how
we're
standing
today.
L
Sure,
yes,
again,
steve
edmondson
for
the
record,
it
is
it.
It
has
definitely
been
a.
I
guess,
a
volatile
start
to
the
current
calendar
year
through
the
december
quarter
purses
up
7.4
percent
as
we
sit
here
today,
we're
up
four
percent
and
I
think
that's
just
a
good
kind
of
a
touchstone
as
to
the
type
of
volatility
that
we
can
expect
in
any
single
year.
L
It's
been
a
it's
been
a
relatively
good
start
to
a
fiscal
year,
especially
coming
off
a
a
period
of
extraordinarily
strong
returns.
It's
not
only
been
a
great
a
single
year
last
fiscal
year
of
27.3,
but
the
last
decade
pers
portfolio
was
up
10
annualized
and
what
we've
witnessed
over
time
is
that
you
know,
after
periods
of
extraordinarily
strong
returns,
they're
often
followed
by
periods
of
returns.
That
are
a
little
bit
more
needed.
L
So,
for
instance,
if
the
portfolio
over
the
next
10
years
delivered
an
annualized
return
of,
say
5,
that
would
average
out
over
a
20-year
time
period
to
be
seven
and
a
half
percent.
So
it's
one
of
those
things
that
we
really
need
to
take
heart,
that
in
any
single
year
and
as
we
look
out
over
the
next
few
months,
you
know
we're
sitting
here
at
four
percent.
Where
we
end
the
fiscal
year
is
anyone's
guess.
A
Yes,
thank
you,
my
my
question
was
kind
of
around
the
investment
strategy
and
I
know
that
you
had
mentioned
that
it's
so
100
indexed
right
now
and
that's
you
know
kind
of
been
why
we've
been
able
to
keep
our
fees
low
and
and
have
a
very
small
and
lean
shop.
Is
there
any
plan
or
discussion
about?
A
L
Yes,
steve
edmondson
for
the
record,
we
don't
have
any
current
plans
to
alter.
I
guess
the
the
simple
approach
that
that
we've
been
employing
here
at
pers.
It's
it's
proven
to
be
highly
successful.
We
have
nearly
four
decades
of
experience
at
this
point
and-
and
you
know
there
will
definitely
be
time
periods
where
we're
at
the
bottom
of
the
database.
L
We've
experienced
that
about
a
third
of
the
time,
there'll
be
time
periods
where
the
volatility
sings
the
portfolio
a
bit,
but
but
we
do
remain
confident
that
that
per
simple
approach
will
continue
to
produce
competitive
returns
over
time.
L
However,
with
that
said,
the
the
piece
of
purse
investment
report
program-
that's
fully,
indexed
are
the
public
market
pieces,
so
u.s
stocks,
international
stocks
and
our
fixed
income
portfolios
are
all
indexed
and
we
think
that
that
strategy
remains
sound
and
that's
where
the
bulk
of
our
cost
savings
comes
from
and,
quite
frankly,
the
evidence
suggests
that
that
this
approach
is
is
a
good
one.
However,
that
isn't
the
entirety
of
per's
investment
program.
L
We
do
have
a
12
dedicated
target
to
private
market
assets,
six
percent
in
private
real
estate
and
a
six
percent
target
allocation
of
private
equity
that
private
equity
piece.
Although
it's
not
a
fund
of
funds
like
you
had
suggested
it's
it's
similar
in
that
it
can
almost
be
considered
to
be
a
separate
account
fund
of
funds.
In
that
we
have
a
fully
discretionary
manager
that
manages
that
portfolio
and
underneath
that
umbrella
are
in
excess
of
200,
individual
private
equity
partnerships.
L
We
we
have
a
a
long
track
record
of
success
with
this
program.
It's
grown
over
time.
It
used
to
be
when
I
started
here.
It
was
around
one
percent
of
per's
total
fund
assets.
Today
we
have
a
target
of
six
percent
of
total
fund
assets.
It's
actually
running
a
little
bit
above
that
because
returns
last
year
and
the
private
markets
were
so
strong.
The
private
equity
portfolio
was
up
67
last
fiscal
year,
so
we're
a
little
bit
of
a
target,
purr's
private
real
estate
portfolio
is
is,
is
a
little
bit
different.
L
It's
much
more
conservative
than
than
I
would
say
the
typical
public
pension
fund
and
that
our
private
real
estate
portfolio
does
not
utilize
leverage.
It
consists
entirely
of
unlevered
core
assets
and
it's
and
it's
been
incredibly
competitive
relative
to
some
other
programs
that
have
a
lot
more
risk
in
them.
L
So
I
I
think
that
we're
going
to
continue
to
stick
with
these
approaches
and
whether
or
not
they
get
expanded
at
some
point
into
the
future
on
the
private
market
side,
that's
something
that
we're
always
considering
and
in
fact,
we're
looking
at
and
reviewing
our
asset
allocation
here
this
spring
in
march
and
april.
L
We're
often
kind
of
held
out
as
a
simple
fund,
because
we,
because
we
are
100
indexed.
However,
we
do
in
fact
have
have
that
that
12
target
allocation
to
to
those
private
private
assets
include
including
private
equity.
I
Yes,
thank
you.
Thank
you
so
much
on
on
page
85
of
our
exhibit.
I
was
just
looking
at
the
investment
managers
and
fees
and
my
question
there
could
you
I
have.
I
have
two
two
points
actually
one.
It
would
be
great.
I
think,
if
we
could
just
add
columns
in,
for
example,
the
asset
size
by
each
fund
manager
it'd
be
nice
to
have
a
percentage
column.
So
it's
easy
to
see.
You
know
this
fund
manager
is
handling
eight
percent,
this
one
fifteen
percent
and
the
fees.
I
I
L
Yes,
absolutely
and
again,
steve
edinson,
for
the
record
and
and
and
and
first
of
all,
we'll
absolutely
include
those
additional
columns
on
page
85
at
the
report
going
forward.
That's
definitely
something
that
we
can
do.
L
However,
in
regard
to
in
kind
of
the
the
I
think
it
you
know,
the
obvious
thing
that
jumps
off
the
page
here
is,
as
you
look
at
the
size
of
those
portfolios
and
then
the
the
fees
associated
with
them,
for
instance,
the
a
b
portfolio
at
the
top
of
the
page
that
you
reference.
That's
an
s,
p
500
index
mandate,
which
has
extraordinarily
low
fees.
So
the
fees
on
that
portfolio
are
less
than
one
half
of
the
basis
point.
L
And
so,
even
though
it's
this
large
portfolio
12
billion
dollars
in
assets
on
an
annual
basis,
it
only
costs
us
682
000
to
to
to
access
that
market
and
that's
a
byproduct
of
again
of
of
those
indexed
portfolios.
So
our
across
the
board,
our
index
mandates
you're
going
to
see
very
low
fees
associated
with
them,
and
that's
one
of
the
reasons
why
we
do
it.
Our
nevada
purse
fees
are
approximately
40
basis
points
below
the
median
fund
investment
fees.
L
L
Yes,
and
so
those
private
market
portfolios
are
the
ones
that
I
was
just
talking
about
before.
On
the
on
the
earlier
question,
the
private
real
estate
mandates,
which
are
aew
on
this
page
and
vesco
real
estate,
and
then
there
are
the
large
fees
associated
with
the
pathway
capital
portfolio,
which
is
the
private
equity
mandate.
L
Private
equity
fees
are
are
one
of
those
things
that
they're,
always
it's
the
most
high
fee
asset
class
out
there.
It's
something
that
we've
scrutinized
again
and
again
over
the
years
and
have
been
reluctant
to,
I
guess-
increase
our
allocation
to
the
asset
class,
largely
or
not,
the
least
of
which
is
due
to
the
fact
that
the
asset
classes
has
much
higher
fees.
It's
important
to
note
that
that
private
equity
included
in
those
private
equity
fees
are
the
fees
for
all
the
underlying
general
partnerships
within
the
portfolio.
L
Private
equity
fees
are
one
of
those
things
that
are
reported
differently
across
all
funds.
Some
funds
will
only
report
a
portion
of
them
we'd
like
to
include
for
the
purpose
of
just
simply
transparency.
We
try
to
include
all
the
fees
associated
with
with
those
private
equity
mandates,
including
the
underlying
general
partner
fees,.
M
L
We
should
so
the
fees
are
very
high.
Well,
it's
it's
a
hot
industry
debate
as
to
what
actually
does
constitute
a
fee
in
private
equity,
because
returns
for
private
equity
are
always
reported
net
of
all
fees.
We
don't
cut
a
check
for
each
one
of
those,
those
fees
that
are
noted.
L
Those
are
fees
that
are
are
netted
out
of
the
distributions
that
are
returned
to
nevada
pers
in
in,
in
terms
of
the
distributions
that
we
receive
out
of
the
partnerships,
so
we
don't
actually
get
an
invoice
for
those
fees,
but
we
do
account
for
them
the
fact
that
those
fees
are
retained
by
the
general
partner
and
are
not
just
ultimately
distributed
back
to
us.
D
L
And
it's
it's
it's
it's
one
of
those
things
that
private
equity
particularly
has
proven
to
provide
a
couple
of
benefits.
Despite
the
large
fees.
It's
something
that
we
take
really
seriously
here.
We
want
to
remain
the
lowest
cost
public
pension
fund
out
there.
However,
if
there's
an
opportunity
for
us
to
include
something
in
the
portfolio
that
will
still
be
accretive
both
on
a
return
basis
and
also
provide
some
some
diversification
benefits.
L
Despite
those
costs,
we
will
include
it
in
the
portfolio,
even
though
we
have
this
propensity
to
keep
our
fees
as
low
as
possible,
and
private
equities
is
an
asset
class.
That's
that
over
the
years
has
has
proven
to
deliver
a
premium
above
and
beyond
what
public
markets
have
have
delivered
and
has
also
provided
some
additional
diversification
benefits
to
the
fund.
I
I
don't
mind
fees
being
higher
when
the
returns
are
higher.
Maybe
what
might
be
helpful
too,
is
to
even
add
one
more
column
where
we
have
maybe
the
five-year
average
of
returns
from
those
funds
that
just
be
a
quick
little
cheat
sheet
here
on
85,
we
could,
you
know,
see
the
percentage
of
of
which
group
what
their
portion
of
the
asset
management
is,
what
the
percentage
of
fees
is
to
their
asset
base
and
then
perhaps
when
we're
calling
with
just
what?
What
are
the
returns?
L
L
So
last
year
was
one
of
those
few
years
where
you
know
if
these
out
of
that
portfolio
were
higher,
but
you
know
we'll
we'll,
certainly
happily
take
the
neda
fee
premium
at
the
end
of
the
day,
and
but
it's
important,
you
know
to
kind
of
hold
all
these
and,
I
think
carefully,
scrutinize,
especially
the
expensive
asset
classes,
because
we
want
to
be
sure
that
that
we
are
getting
our
money's
worth
so.
We'll
absolutely
include
that
on
a
going
forward
basis.
B
There
are
questions
from
other
committee
members
at
this
time,
mr
or
senator
orange.
J
Thank
you
very
much,
madam
chair,
mr
edmundson.
Thank
you
for
your
presentation,
two
questions.
If
you'll
indulge
me
indulge
me,
madam
chair,
and
I
you
know
being
new
to
this
committee,
maybe
these
have
been
answered
before,
but
one
looking
at
the
investments
on
page
85
does
pers,
invest
we're
talking
about
speculative
investments,
and
I
appreciate
the
conservative
approach,
but
does
pers
does
pers
have
any
investments
in
cryptocurrency?
J
That's
my
first
question
and
if
so
you
know
how,
how
do
you
kind
of
temper,
the
spec,
the
speculativeness
of
that
and
then
you
know,
hearing
so
many
of
the
talking
heads
talk
about
a
possible
contraction,
that's
that
might
be
coming.
I
just
wonder
how
is
pers
trying
to
prepare
for
that?
If,
if
that
is
on
the
horizon,.
L
Yes,
thank
you
for
that
question.
Again,
steve
edmondson
chief
investment
officer
nevada
purse
to
address
the
the
first
question.
We
do
not
have
any
direct
investments
in
cryptocurrency.
We
don't
own
any
bitcoin
in
the
portfolio
and
at
this
point
it's
it's
it's
an
asset
class
that
has
not
been
widely
adopted
by
large-scale
institutional
managers.
I
have
only
heard
of
one
other
large
public
pension
fund
that
has
even
begin
or
begun
to
include
any
any
direct
exposure
to
cryptocurrencies
in
their
portfolio.
L
I
think
it
it
it's
one
of
those
things
that
that
we
don't
anticipate
will
will
will
play
a
meaningful
role
in
burr's
portfolio,
at
least
in
in
the
near
term.
It's
at
this
point
I
would,
I
think,
it's
fair
to
say,
remains
purely
a
speculative
asset
class,
but
we'll
see
how
it
evolves
over
the
years.
L
However,
with
that
said,
we
do,
or
we
did
have,
a
small
exposure
in
our
private
equity
portfolio
to
a
related
company
called
coinbase
that
went
public
and
and
that
that
operates
as
an
exchange
in
the
cryptocurrency
markets.
And
so
there
was
some
small
exposure
within
our
private
equity
portfolio,
but
we
do
not
have
any
direct
exposure
to
crypto
in
the
portfolio
and
don't
think
don't
plan
on
including
it
in
the
anywhere
in
the
near
term
in
regard
to
potentially
protecting
the
portfolio
for
a
downturn
in
the
markets.
L
That's
one
of
the
things
that
that
that
is
always
in
the
back
of
our
head.
We
certainly
don't
know
when
downturns
will
happen
and
we
don't
know
how
deep
they
will
be.
However,
we
do
know
that
they
will
happen
and
in
order
to
combat
that
or
or
help
offset,
that
pers
portfolio
is
broadly
diversified
across
asset
classes,
owning
both
high
quality,
u.s
stocks
and
develop
market
international
stocks.
L
But
to
offset
some
of
the
volatility
that's
associated
with,
I
guess
growth
assets
or
you
call
them
risk
assets,
stocks
and
equity
in
our
portfolio.
We
do
have
a
large
allocation
to
treasury
bonds.
So
our
fixed
income
allocation
is
is
somewhat
unique
in
the
industry,
in
that
it's
entirely
consists
of
u.s
government
treasury
securities.
L
There
is
no
credit
in
that
portfolio,
so
we've
specifically
removed
all
the
equity
linked
risk
out
of
our
fixed
income
portfolio,
so
it
acts
as
a
pure
diversifier
when
equity
markets
do
turn
down
now
with
just
over
70
percent
of
our
portfolio,
and
I
and
what
you
could,
I
guess
characterize
as
being
kind
of
risky
growth
assets,
meaning
stocks
and
and
equity
and
private
real
estate.
We
do
have
a
larger
allocation
to
those
diversifying
assets
and
treasury
bonds
than
than
the
median
funds.
L
So
on
one
end
we
have
more
kind
of
high
quality,
u.s
stocks
on
on
one
side
and
then
to
to
to
mute
the
impact
of
downturns.
We
have,
we
have
a
whole
bunch
of
treasury
bonds.
On
the
other
side,
however,
with
that
said,
when
market
downturns
do
occur,
there's
only
so
much
that
we
can
do
to
protect
the
portfolio.
We
will
experience
the
ride
along
with
markets,
but
we
do
the
best
that
we
possibly
can
to
to
smooth
it
out
as
the
years
go
by.
B
B
Seeing
none
okay!
Thank
you
very
much.
I
believe
now
we
can
actually
go
to
the
next
item.
I
jumped
the
gun
a
bit
to
item
number
six.
C
C
Section
4
of
assembly
bill
1
of
the
23rd
special
session,
ab1
repealed
the
benefit
effective
july
1st
2007
and
phases
it
out
over
time.
If
an
employee
elected
to
continue
in
this
program,
the
participation
ceases
when
the
employee
has
received
after
his
election
one
full
year
service
credit
pursuant
to
that
program.
C
The
spreadsheet
on
page
89,
reflects
the
purchases
for
calendar
years,
20
and
21.
in
calendar
year.
20,
the
system
received
470
thousand
two
hundred
fifty
three
dollars
for
eighty
one
purchases
in
calendar
year:
twenty
twenty
one.
It
was
two
hundred
and
sixty
six
thousand
nine
sixty
five
for
forty
four
purchases.
C
Since
inception,
we
have
received
about
148
million
for
over
41
000
purchases.
So,
as
you
can
see,
this
benefit
is
phasing
out
slowly,
but
we
do
have
a
few
stragglers
and
when
each
of
them
have
had
their
full
year
purchased,
then
this
program
will
be
gone.
I'd
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions
on
this
program.
B
C
I
believe
yes,
man
of
charity
and
alyssa
again
executive
officer
occurs.
Item
4.7,
beginning
on
page
91
of
your
packet
is
a
memorandum
outlining
the
pers
current
re-employment
restrictions
and
the
critical
labor
short
exemption
from
these
re-employment
restrictions,
also
included
with
the
memo
pursuant
to
nrs
286
523,
subsection
6
is
a
report
on
the
compilation
of
the
forms
received
from
each
designating
authority
that
has
designated
a
position
as
a
critical
need
position
effective.
C
But
to
do
so
it
did
the
legis.
The
legislation
in
2009
requires
a
declaration
of
the
critical
need
of
the
position
and
it
needs
to
be
extreme
need.
It
requires
the
employers
to
seek
declaration
of
positions
of
critical
need,
make
the
determination,
based
on
the
appropriate,
necessary
delivery
of
services
to
the
public.
C
C
The
critical
labor
charge
provisions
were
set
to
sunset
june
30
2015,
the
senate
bill
406
of
the
2015
legislative
session,
removed
the
sunset
for
these
provisions
and
made
these
provisions
a
permanent
feature
of
the
plan
effective
for
the
period
july,
1st
2019
to
june
30
2021
156
positions
were
declared
as
critical
needs
by
48
employers,
including
six
positions
designated
by
the
state,
91
positions
designated
by
charter
class,
school
districts
and
charter
schools,
eight
positions
designated
by
counties,
47
positions
designated
by
hospitals,
two
positions
by
cities
and
two
positions
by
fire
protection
districts.
C
These
designations
are
valid
for
two
years
and
then
must
be
redesignated
to
remain.
In
effect,
the
declaration
of
critical
need
is
position
driven,
not
individual
specific.
Therefore,
one
position
designation,
for
instance,
a
special
education
teacher
at
a
particular
school
district-
may
have
a
number
of
employees
hired
under
that
designation.
C
I
will
note
that
this
biennium
there
were
quite
a
few
more
positions
designated
than
the
previous
biennium,
the
it
appears
to
be
mainly
in
the
hospital
area,
which
makes
sense,
given
the
the
last
two
year
period
that
we
have
been
in,
and
with
that
I
would
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
B
So
with
that
miss
lisa,
I
think
I
would
be
important
for
you
to
go
ahead.
You
said
something
that
I
think
a
lot
of
folks
glance
over
position
isn't
necessarily
a
person
position
is
more
the
classification
and
there
could
be
multiple
employees
within
that
position.
Is
that
correct?
That's.
C
Absolutely
correct
the
the
the
reasoning
behind
the
designation
is
that
you
have
a
critical
position,
that
you
cannot
fill
and
that's
why
it's
position
driven.
So
I
use
the
dev
the
example
of
a
special
education
teacher,
because
that
I
I
know
historically
sometimes
can
be
hard
to
fill
so,
for
instance,
if
clark
county
school
district
designates
special
education
teacher
there
there
could
be
that's
one
designation,
but
you
might
have
15
employees
across
the
district
that
are
employed
under
that
one
designation.
B
B
C
Correct,
I
I
think
a
lot
of
these
positions
have
been
continually
redesignated
every
two
years,
and
that
is
up
to
the
appointing
authority.
In
this
case
it
beats
school
board,
and
so
pers
has
has
no
involvement
in
that
designation.
That
is
obviously
at
the
employer
level
where
they
know
their
needs.
C
M
Hello,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
my
name
is
rick
combs
c-o-m-b-s,
it's
good
to
see
many
of
you
that
I
know
from
the
past
and
nice
to
meet
those
of
you
who
weren't
legislators
when,
when
I
was
with
the
legislature
myself,
but
I
just
wanted
to
give
you
a
little
bit
of
background
about
the
retirement
benefits
investment
fund.
M
M
The
bill
was
requested
by
the
committee
on
local
government
finance
to
address
two
primary
issues.
The
first
being
gasby
45
included
a
requirement
that,
in
order
to
offset
liabilities
for
other
post-retirement
benefits
the
assets
to
pay
those
liabilities
needed
to
be
deposited
in
an
irrevocable
trust
fund,
and
so
the
first
thing
they
wanted
to
do
was
authorize
local
governments
to
be
able
to
create
those
trust
funds.
M
M
M
The
bill
also
created
the
retirement
benefits
investment
fund,
which,
pursuant
to
statute,
really
serves
as
a
pooled
investment
vehicle
for
the
opeb
trusts.
M
Of
457
created
a
retirement
benefits
investment
board
to
manage
our
biff
and
it
it
does
not
act
as
a
fiduciary.
With
respect
to
the
money,
that's
contributed
to
the
fund.
The
retirement
benefits
investment
board
consists
of
the
same
members,
the
pers
board,
but
it
is
a
separate
legal
entity
and
has
separately
agendized
meetings.
M
It's
authorized
to
employ
such
staff
and
contract
for
services
as
the
necessary
to
administer
the
fund
and
to
charge
administrative
costs
to
the
fund
from
the
fund's
inception
in
2008
until
2020,
the
pers
staff
provided
all
this
administrative
support
for
the
fund
in
october
of
2020,
the
board
approved
a
contract
for
administration,
and
that's
why
I'm
here
before
you
today,
and
the
per
staff
still
provides
the
investment,
the
legal
and
the
accounting
services
for
the
board,
a
performance
standpoint.
As
of
the
end
of
fy
2021,
the
balance
in
the
fund
was
773.8
million
dollars.
M
The
return
for
fy
2021
very
consistent
with
the
the
other
funds
that
that
steve
talked
to
you
about
returned
27.5
and
the
return
since
inception.
So
since
2008
in
the
fund
has
been
7.9
percent.
M
The
funds
required
to
be
managed
in
the
same
manner
as
pers
investment
as
the
perv's
investment
program
due
to
the
much
smaller
size
of
the
rbf
assets
compared
to
the
pers
assets.
There
are
some
differences
in
the
structure
between
the
funds,
but
the
policy
risk
allocation
is
identical,
and
this
is
demonstrated
by
the
fact
that
over
the
past
10
years,
the
returns
in
the
investment
fund
is
within
0.2
percent
of
the
purge
returns.
M
M
There
are
now
12
opeb
trusts
that
are
participating
and
that's
down
from
basically
down
from
13
they're.
All
at
this
point
now,
local
governments,
the
public
employees
benefits
program,
did
withdraw
the
last
amount
of
money
that
was
in
their
in
the
rbf
for
their
liabilities.
They
they
withdrew
that
this
past
year
with
that
amount,
madam
chair
I'll,
be
glad
to
stand
for
any
questions.
B
Well,
thank
you
very
much,
mr
combs.
It's
nice
to
hear
your
voice
again
hope
you're
doing
well,
there's
a
couple
times
last
session.
I
almost
called
you,
but
I
didn't
so
welcome
so
with
that
committee
members.
Do
you
have
any
questions
of
mr
comes
miss
kasama,
assemblywoman,
kazama,.
I
B
I
Chair,
I
just
wanted
to
understand
for
this
fun,
so
this
fund,
it
not
being
combined
with
furs,
is
strictly
to
to
comply
with
the
gasby
requirements.
Is
that
correct
the
gasb?
M
Yeah,
I
think
the
primary
when
the
bill
was
originally
introduced.
It
did
actually
combine
it
with
pers.
That
was
the
original
design,
but,
as
you
can
imagine,
purge
had
some
pretty
big
concerns
with
that
from
the
standpoint
of
only
having
pers
people
working
on
pers,
I,
you
know
pers
money
and
there
being
that
fiduciary
responsibility
that
that
the
the
purse
board
had
towards
pers,
and
so
ultimately,
when
the
bill
was
enacted,
it
was
amended
to
create
a
separate
fund,
and
so
there
are,
there
is
no
sub-accounts
or
anything
like
that.
M
It
is
two
separate
funds
managed
by
two
separate
boards
and
again
that's.
Although
the
the
board
membership
is
the
same
the
boards,
they
are
in
fact
separate
legal
entities.
I
And
is
this
mainly
done
to
comply
with
gatsby
requirements.
M
Well,
you
could,
you
could
probably
have
complied
with
gasby
without
creating
the
trust
fund,
but
what
the
creation?
The
trust
fund
allowed,
was
for
the
various
local
governments
to
pool
their
investments
in
the
liabilities
that
they
were
going
to
face
for
these
other
post-employment
benefits
and
and
to
achieve
and
to
be
able
to
achieve
better
returns,
because
they
were
able
then
to
invest
in
long-term
investments
rather
than
what
the
investments
that
local
governments
are
typically
limited
to.
I
B
A
Thank
you
ma'am
sure,
when
I'm
looking
at
the
balances
in
the
fund,
when
you
look
at,
for
instance,
like
washer,
county
and
tahoe
douglas
fire
protection,
it's
significantly
higher
than
clark
county
of
the
city
of
las
vegas,
and
I
know
the
funds
aren't
required
to
be
put
in.
But
those
are
it's
not
required
to
be
put
into
this
fund.
So
what
do
those
municipalities
do?
Because
I
would
imagine
they've
got
outstanding
liabilities
outside
of
retirement,
because
this
is
all
about
benefits
outside
of
retirement.
M
Correct
these
are,
these
are
primarily
for
health
benefits,
for
retirees
and
each
of
the
local
governments
have
their
own
methods
that
they
use
to
try
to
offset
those
liabilities
and-
and
they
can
choose
not
to
offset
those
liabilities
quite
frankly
as
well.
So
each
of
them
are
making
their
own
separate
decisions
as
to
first
of
all,
how
much
they
set
aside
for
those
liabilities
and
then,
secondarily,
whether
or
not
they
choose
to
use
the
retirement
benefits
investment
fund
for
all
of
the
money
that
they
have
set
aside.
M
A
As
a
follow-up,
if
they're
not
participating
in
this-
and
you
just
mentioned-
they
have
a
choice.
Whether
because,
when
you
look
at
pers,
that's
a
property
right,
but
that
health
insurance
is
not
a
property
right
is
my
understanding,
and
so
it's
the
obligation
is
is
different.
A
M
Yeah
you
know,
gatsby
does
have
some
applicability,
but
I
don't
want
to
senator
seaver's
gangster.
I
don't
want
to
suggest
to
you
that
I'm
an
expert
on
gasbio.
Clearly
I
am
not
but
gasby
statements,
4,
43
and
45-
did
relate
to
these
other
post
employment
benefits
that
government
entities
have
on
their
books
and
you,
you
are
they're,
really
reporting
issues,
though
about
how
you
report
those
liabilities,
and
in
this
case,
what
these
trust
funds
allow
the
local
government
to
do
is
they
have
to
report
the
liability
on
their
financial
statements.
M
This
allowed
them
to
be
able
to
offset
those
liabilities
by
showing
that,
yes,
we
also
have
this
trust
fund
over
here.
This
oped
trust
fund
that
has
money
set
aside
to
offset
those
liabilities.
If,
if
a
particular
government
agency
didn't
have
anything
set
aside,
then
they
obviously
just
wouldn't
report
any
offset
to
those
liabilities
that
were
on
their
books.
A
Okay
and
then
all
the
entities
I'm
trying
to
remember
the
name,
is
a
kaffir
that
they
have
annual
reports
where
they
have
to
disclose
this
information
is
that
is
that
right?
So
if
I
were
to
look
at
clark
county,
I
could
see
what
they
reported
on
an
annual
basis
as
far
as
their
liability
and
if
they
have
any
trusts
like
this,
is
like
other
than
this
one.
That's
set
up.
B
K
Afternoon,
madam
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record
kabrina
phaser
operations
officer
for
the
public
employees,
retirement
system
of
nevada
item
9,
starting
on
page
107,
provides
an
update
on
the
status
of
the
new
pension
administration
system.
Work
began
with
the
vendor
tegret
software
ventures.
On
february
22nd
2021
there
was
an
in-person
project
kickoff
with
the
vendor
and
staff
on
july
13th
of
2021.
K
There
are
seven
phases
to
the
project
and
phases:
phase,
1
project
initiation
and
startup
phase
2
infrastructure
and
project
prep
and
phase
3.1
web-based
employer
reporting
requirements
are
completed.
An
employer
advisory
group
has
been
established.
This
has
been
a
beneficial
resource
for
communication
and
collaboration.
K
K
B
H
Thank
you
chair.
I
am
curious
about
the
status
of
the
development
for
phase
three.
I
think
I
heard
you
to
say
that
it
was
completed,
but
I
looking
at
my
notes
and
the
packet
it
looks
like
it's
due
to
be
completed
in
what
is
that
august
of
this
year.
K
K
So
that's
where
staff
met
with
the
vendor
in
order
to
develop
what
was
needed
in
order
for
them
to
design
before
we
went,
live
with
the
employer,
reporting
processes
with
all
of
the
employer
groups,
and
so
that
is
the
piece
that
is
completed.
We
are
actually
project
phase.
3.2
is
the
file
based
reporting,
which
is
due
in
june,
but
we
are
actually
on
track
to
complete
early,
and
so
we
have
been
working
with
the
vendor
and
getting
really
close
to
getting.
All
of
that.
B
Miss
peters
anything
else.
No,
that
was
it
for
me
very
welcome
any
other
member
committee.
Any
questions
on
this
item
trying
to
scan
the
gallery
not
seeing
any
all
right.
Thank
you
very
much.
We
appreciate
the
presentation
so
with
that.
I
believe.
That
concludes
item
number.
Four.
B
On
all
the
items
under
the
purse
system,
I
believe
we
can
go
to
item
number
five
discussing
the
public
employees
benefits
program,
so
we'll
give
folks
a
moment
to
switch
up
here.
B
D
D
So
I
realized
that
the
committee
has
been
provided
a
whole
lot
of
reports
containing
a
plethora
of
information,
so
I
put
together
a
presentation
that
recaps
some
of
the
more
important
items
from
each
of
the
reports.
Ms
eaton
will
be
manning
the
presentation.
While
I
go
through
each
of
the
agenda
items
one
by
one
and
then
I'll
stop
in
between
for
questions.
B
And
before
you
proceed,
miss
rich
just
to
let
everyone
know
that
we
won't
need
to
discuss
item
number
two
that
was
put
on
the
agenda.
Those
items
were
not
available
to
us
right
now,
so
that
that's
not
ready
to
be
discussed
today,
so
we'll
be
doing
items
one
three,
four
and
five.
If
I
understand
correctly
so,
please
proceed
okay,.
D
All
right,
so
this
isn't
part
of
the
reports,
but
since
there
are
several
new
members
on
the
committee,
I
thought
it
would
be
good
just
to
provide
some
very
high
level,
a
high-level
snapshot
of
pebb.
First
of
all,
we
cover
active
state
employees,
their
retirees
and
retirees
and
their
dependents,
as
well
as
non-state,
actives
and
retirees.
So
when
we
use
the
term
non-state
we're
referring
to
groups
such
as
local
governments
and
school
districts,
etc,
etc,
and
also
their
dependents
as
well.
D
So
pep
provides
members
with
health
insurance
benefits,
including
medical
vision,
dental
and
then
other
ancillary
benefits,
such
as
basic
life
insurance.
We
also
include
a
multitude
of
voluntary
benefits
as
well,
so
we
are
funded
using
two
mechanisms.
The
first
is
a
legislatively
approved
subsidy.
This
is
determined
during
pebb's
budget
hearing
during
legislative
session
and
that
subsidy
amount
is
the
portion
that
the
employer
picks
up.
So
in
that
case,
the
state
typically
for
employee
only
coverage
that
subsidy
covers
about
anywhere
between
92
to
96
of
the
total
premium,
depending
on
the
on
the
plan
year.
D
The
remainder
of
that
is
what
the
employee
pays
and
it
is
their.
What
turns
out
to
be
their
monthly
premium,
although
pad,
doesn't
receive
general
fund
dollars.
Agencies
were
funded
using
general
fund
dollars,
pay
that
to
pay
the
subsidy
to
pay
for
each
employee
with
their
agency
and
then
also
because
retirees
are
offered
insurance
benefits
as
well.
Agencies
also
pay
a
percentage
of
payroll
to
fund
the
retiree
benefits
next
slide.
D
Soph
offers
several
plans
that
the
majority
of
our
plans
are
self-funded.
We
have
a
consumer-driven
high-deductible
plan
which
is
offered
statewide.
We
have
an
exclusive
provider
organization
plan,
which
is
the
epo
that's
offered
in
the
north
and
a
low
deductible
plan,
which
is
offered
statewide.
That
is
new
for
this
plan
you're,
the
current
one
we
are
we
are
in
today.
D
We
also
offer
a
fully
insured
plan,
it's
an
hmo
in
the
south,
and
it
is
offered
by
health
plan
of
nevada
for
our
medicare
retirees.
We
offer
a
medicare
exchange,
that
is,
that
is
available
for
those
medicare
retirees
to
purchase
their
medicare
plans
through
and
enroll
in
their
medicare
plans.
We
also
provide
a
an
hra
for
those
medicare
retirees
based
on
years
of
service
as
well.
D
D
The
first
one
is
employer,
employer-mandated,
covid19
testing,
so
previously
dhhs
was
administering
the
testing
employee
testing
program
and
paying
for
it
using
crf
funding.
That
function
has
now
been
transitioned
to
pebb,
as
well
as
the
funding
that
will
transition
to
pet
effective
february
effective
february
2022
this
month.
Some
information
and
notices
went
out
actually
yesterday
on
this,
and
so
this
is
now
up
and
running
and
ready
to
kick
off
on
february
21st.
D
D
Previously
there
was
a
70
threshold
where,
if
you
worked
in
a
in
a
building
or
in
a
state
office
that
that
was
over
70
percent
vaccinated,
those
employees
who
were
unvaccinated
did
not
have
to
test.
They
were
exempt
from
testing
that
it
has
now
gone
away
and
is
no
longer
in
effect,
so
100
of
unvaccinated
employees
will
be
subject
to
testing
the
cost
based
on
the
data
that
was
available
back
in
december,
when
the
pep
board
met
and
discussed
and
approved.
D
This
option
is
based
on
the
number
of
employees
who
are
unvaccinated
and
the
number
that
we
have
available.
D
It's
estimated
to
be
about
6,
000,
state
employees
and
looking
at
that
number
using
that
number
we're
looking
at
about
18.5
of
the
18.5
million
dollar
cost
per
year
for
testing
pebb
will
be
recouping
these
costs
through
proven
premium
surcharges,
beginning
in
july
of
2022.,
so
effective
february
21st.
As
I
said,
pebb
will
be
administering
rapid
antigen
tests
to
all
agencies
for
distribution
to
employees.
There
have
been
some
agencies
who
have
selected
to
direct
mail,
these
tests
to
their
employees
to
their
homes
instead
of
distributing
them
in-house.
D
Those
tests
are
proctored
through
a
telemedicine
provider
and
then
results
are
logged
so
that
the
state
can
then
follow
up
on
who
has
tested
and
which
employees
are
subject
to
testing.
D
It's
a
little
bit
on
the
covet
surcharges.
This
was
the
covet
surcharges
were
meant
to
recoup
costs,
not
just
for
the
weekly
testing
of
unvaccinated
employees.
It's
also
meant
to
recoup
the
cost
associated
with
with
higher
testing
and
treatment
costs
associated
with
unvaccinated
members.
Additionally
hospitalization
as
well.
D
This
was
modeled
under
a
similar
to
a
tobacco
surcharge
which
has
been
deemed
legal
and
appropriate
and
through
other
insurers
have
been
using
this
for
years
now
so,
but
it
is
still
subject
to
the
aca
affordability
rules,
because
of
that,
the
the
surcharges
were
capped
for
the
employees
state
employees,
but
were
not
capped
or
dependents,
so
those
state
employees,
the
surcharge,
will
be
fifty
to
fifty
five
dollars
a
month
per
unvaccinated
employee
and
then
a
hundred
and
seventy
five
dollars
a
month
for
unvaccinated
dependent
over
eighteen.
D
The
surcharges,
as
I
said,
begin
on
july,
1st,
2022
and
pebb
will
be
working
with
the
governor's
office
to
establish
medical
and
religious
exempt
a
medical
and
religious
exemption
process,
and
we
will
have
that
in
place
by
the
time
that
this
is
well
in
advance
of
the
of
these
surcharges
beginning
on
july.
1St
next
slide.
B
Yes,
rich,
I'm
going
to
stop
you
right
there.
I
think
for
us
this
first
one
and
then
we'll
move
to
plan
design
each
one
of
these
is
a
little
complicated.
So
as
far
as
the,
if
you
could
go
back
to
the
screen,
I'd
appreciate
it
to
remind
me:
does
the
state
currently
do
the
tobacco
surcharge?
D
B
So,
even
though
we
don't
apply
a
tobacco
surcharge
or
you're,
citing
that
as
the
basis
for
the
vaccine
surcharge.
D
Correct
it
was
the
legality
of
this
is
based
on
the
basically
it's
similar
to
a
tobacco
surcharge,
and
so
those
insurers
who
have
imposed
similar
surcharges
to
what
pep
is
doing.
This
is
it's
been.
It's
been
deemed
kind
of
the
predecessor
of
these
coping
surcharges
and
what
it
what
the
coded
surcharges
are
modeled
under.
B
Do
you
plan
on
ever
implementing
a
tobacco
surcharge,
because,
to
me
that's
a
much
bigger
problem
in
in
long
term
and
probably
a
much
higher
cost.
So
is
the
board
contemplating
a
tobacco
surcharge
in
the
future.
D
B
And
it's
my
recollection
that,
most
of
the
time,
the
board
has
taken
the
wellness
tact
of
rewarding
folks
for
doing
better,
rather
than
than
penalizing
them.
So
this
particular
surcharge
is
a
a
a
distinct
departure
from
our
wellness
attitude
in
the
past,
whereas
we're
doing
something
at
punitive
for
an
action
rather
than
rewarding
an
action.
D
The
funding
has
to
be
there
right,
so
so,
in
order
to
cover
the
funding
of
testing,
the
cost
of
testing
have
pep
doesn't
have
those
dollars
budgeted,
and
so
the
funding
had
to
come
in
from
somewhere
in
order
to
cover
that
cost
of
employee
testing
for
unvaccinated
members.
In
addition
to
obviously
some
of
these
higher
costs
that
we're
seeing
you
know
through
hospitalization-
and
you
know,
in
treatment
for
covet
of
unvaccinated
members,
so
this
is,
it
is
a
departure
from
the
wellness
approach
in
the
past,
but
it
has
it's.
B
D
That
is
correct.
I
would
also
like
to
just
clarify
that
hub
is
still
paying
for
those
free
tests.
Those
eight
tests
that
that
are
pretty
to
members
are
not
free
to
the
plan,
and
so
we
still
as
an
insurer
still
pay
for
those
eight
tests
that
each
member
is
is
eligible
to
receive
every
month.
D
Correct
that
was
something
that
was
more
rich
for
the
record.
That
was
something
that
the
biden
administration
basically
put
on.
You
know
it
rules
that
the
by
the
administration
put
on
on
the
health
insurance
group
plans,
and
so
those
are
there's
still
a
there's,
a
a
process
that
we're
working
out-
and
I
think
not
just
pebb
but
nationally
insurers
are
trying
to
work
out
that
process
as
to
how
can
we
facilitate
this?
D
This
benefit
for
members
in
order
for
them
to
receive
these
these
free
over-the-counter
tests,
but
this
is
definitely
different.
The
employee
testing
is
for
employee
purposes,
employer
purposes,
and,
and
because
of
that
it
is,
it
needs
to
be
proctored,
and
so
this
is
part
of
that.
Testing
includes
a
proctoring
option.
B
B
Those
are
things
that
I
thought
it
was
really
important
for
us
to
get
on
the
record
moving
forward
because
I'm
getting
emails
from
state
employees
hearing
all
different
types
of
things,
so
I
thought
it
would
be
best
if
I
got
the
answer
from
you
on
the
record
for
them
so
that
it
was
made
available
to
them.
So
other
committee
members,
do
you
have
any
other
questions
on
that
particular
portion
of
the
presentation,
assemblywoman
kasama?
I
Chair,
18.5
million
is
a
lot
of
money
for
for
for
this,
and
I
understand
the
importance
too,
and
the
numbers
have
been
changing
and
we
hopefully
see
further
declines
as
we
go
along
here.
My
question
is
so
since
it
was
struck
down
by
the
u.s
supreme
court
who
is
making
the
decision?
Is
this
your
your
department
that
is
making
the
decision
that
you're
going
to
still
require
mandatory
testing
is
that
from
the
governor's
office?
How
does
this
flow
of?
J
Thank
you
very
much,
chair
carlton,
my
question
as
to
the
surcharge
you
mentioned
that
it
was
primarily
just
to
for
the
state
are
prepared
to
be
even
with
testing
for
the
unvaccinated
employees
who
participate
in
peb.
Why
why
the
three
times
higher
fee
for
the
dependent
over
18?
I
just
wonder:
what's
the
rationale
for
that
being
so
much
higher.
D
Laura
rich
for
the
record,
so
we
had
to,
we
had
to
figure
out
a
mechanism
to
to
bring
in
sufficient
funding
to
cover
the
approximate
18.5
million
dollars
because
of
the
affordability
rules
in
the
aca.
D
You
can
only
impose
a
certain
there's,
a
talk
to
what
you
can
assess
in
terms
of
for
the
employee.
Only
right,
and
so
the
the
total
premium
has
to
be
has
to
be
deemed
affordable
and
there's
a
whole
lot
that
goes
into
it.
There's
you
know
you
use
federal
poverty
levels
and
you
know
minimum
wage
and
things
like
that
that
to
determine
all
that,
and
so
in
order
to
to
remain
under
those
affordable
affordability
levels,
it
had
to
be
capped
at
55
per
employee.
J
Thank
you
and
then
just
so,
I
can
be
clear
that
there's
no
surcharge
or
a
dependent
under
18
who's
unvaccinated
correct.
Thank
you
administrator
rich.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
B
So
miss
rich.
I
need
to
backtrack
on
that
logic,
because
the
person
who
ends
up
paying
it
is
the
state
employee,
so
in
essence
they're
still
paying
for
that
test.
So
I
guess
I'm
just
it
just
seems
a
little
backwards
to
me
that
we're
trying
to
deal
with
an
affordability
threshold
changing
the
rate,
but
yet
the
person
who
ends
up
paying
for
it
is
the
state
employee.
Anyway,.
D
So
laura
rich
for
the
record,
this
gets
even
more
complicated,
chair,
chair,
carlton,
so
employees,
let's
say
that
we
charged
employees
for
a
test,
and,
and
so
they
had
to
go
to
a
certain
testing
facility
and
they
got
charged
week
over
week.
Those
who
were
subject
to
testing
the
so
at
the
beginning
of
the
pandemic,
insurers
were
again.
Another
requirement
was
to
cover
testing
at
100
and
so.
D
When
this,
when
this
policy
was
being
discussed
and
in
actually
discuss
on
federal
level,
one
of
the
concerns
was
that
employers
across
the
nation
right
were
going
to
the
guidance
basically
said.
An
employer
can
either
pick
up
the
cost
themselves
or
they
can.
D
They
can
pass
that
cost
on
to
the
unvaccinated
employee.
However,
that
unvaccinated
employee
can
go
to
any
cvs
any
you
know
any
testing
facility
and
get
a
test
at
no
cost,
because
insurers
are
required
to
cover
diagnostic
testing,
not
surveillance,
which
this
would
be
surveillance,
but
diagnostic
testing
at
no
cost.
D
And
so
the
concern
here
was
in
you
know
from
a
pet
perspective,
is
if
we
now
implement
a
requirement,
we're
going
to
have
every
employee
going
out
and
getting
tested,
and
these
tests
at
depending
on
where
you
go.
You
know
a
copic
test.
A
pcr
test
can
be
probably
average
about
130,
and
so,
if
you've
got
an
employee
going
out
weekly
and
getting
130
pcr
tests,
because
their
employer
is
requiring
requiring
them
to
get
that
it's
getting
charged
to
pep.
So
regardless
it's
coming
back
to
the
peb
plan,
and
so
that
was
the
concern.
D
Is
that
how
do
we
deal
with
this?
How
do
we
you
know?
How
do
we
contain
costs,
especially
if,
at
the
time
we
didn't
know
if
the
ocean
mandate
was
going
to
you
know
what
was
going
to
be
implemented
or
you
know
make
it
through
the
supreme
court,
but
we
had
a
plan
regardless,
and
so
that
is,
that
is
where
it
gets
complicated
because
we
end
up
paying
for
the
test
anyway,
in
one
way
or
the
other,
with
some
some
exceptions
to
that.
D
You
know
we're
steering
people
to
these
tests
versus
the
130
versions
of
these
tests
right
so
that
it
gets
very
complicated.
Hopefully,
that
helps
illustrate
the
picture.
B
B
There
could
be
other
conversations
about
other
surcharges
in
the
future
and
to
me
that
sort
of
defeats,
the
idea
behind
insurance
and
an
insurance
pool,
so
I
just
thought
it'd
be
very
important
to
get
all
these
questions
asked
and
answered
and
get
everything
on
the
record,
because
this
is
a
very
unique
situation
that
the
state
and
the
employees
are
being
put
in,
and
I
realize
you
guys
have
had
to
thread
a
very
fine
needle
in
figuring
out
how
to
address
all
the
issues
involved
with
employees
and
vaccines
and
vaccine
mandates
and
and
everything
that
goes
and
the
insurance
component.
B
F
D
So
the
result
of
shutdowns
and
delayed
care
throughout
both
2020
and
2021
have
self-insured
plans
have
accrued
access,
and
you
know
all
those
medical
and
dental
expenses
that
would
naturally
occur
in
a
normal
year.
Just
weren't
happening
people
weren't
going
into
the
dentist,
because
dentists
were
closed,
people
weren't,
getting
elected
surgeries
because
providers
in
hospitals
were
focused
on
pandemic,
related
care
and
also
containing
the
spread
of
virus.
D
D
Add
to
that
the
volatility
and
healthcare
costs
in
general,
plus
just
the
state
of
the
economy
and
inflation
factors?
You
know
pebb
is
just
hesitant
to
spend
down
all
of
the
reserves
that
we've
accrued
throughout
the
pandemic.
Just
because
there's
a
good
chance
that
actual
claim
expenditures
are
going
to
be
higher
than
budgeted,
and
so
we
will
need
to
dip
into
access
to
cover
those
those
rebounded
claims.
D
So,
instead
with
the
assistance
of
actuarial
modeling,
what
the
pep
board
decided
to
do
is
use
a
portion
of
the
projected
access
to
fund
the
restoration
of
some
of
the
benefits
that
were
cut
last
year
as
a
result
of
the
pandemic.
Related
budget
cuts,
and
the
focus
here
was
to
restore
deductibles
and
out-of-pocket
maximums
back
to
free
pandemic
levels
and
to
be
able
to
fund
the
restoration
for
three
years
to
ensure
that
consistency
in
plan
design
so
similar
to
per
person's
approach.
D
So
this
slide
here,
I
think,
just
shows
it's
a
simple
illustration
of
claims.
Experience
month
over
month.
It's
a
snapshot
here.
The
black
line
is
what
has
been
budgeted
for.
So
you
see
that's
our
budget,
but
the
green
line
is
what
we
are
mostly
concerned
about.
The
difference
between
that
black
and
green
line
is
what
we're
looking
at,
and
you
see
that
that
green
line,
which
is
the
overall
rolling
trend,
so
that's
medical
and
rx
and
dental
all
rolled
into
one.
D
You
see
that
in
2020
we
had
that
huge
claims,
suppression
right
you
just
you
see
lower
than
normal
planes
coming
in
and
then
right
around
march
of
2021.
We
see
it
start,
jumping
and
and
that
spike
has
continued.
D
This
only
goes
through
july
of
21,
however,
month
over
month,
pep
receives
reports,
and
and
this
spike
is
continuing-
and
so
you
know
the
difference
there
between
that
black
line
and
green
line
is
what
we're
concerned
about,
because
the
that's
unbudgeted
for
expenses
that
we
had
not
planned
for
and
so
next
slide
is
the
the
chart
that
shows
the
decisions
that
were
made
by
the
pep
board
for
the
upcoming
plan
year.
D
So,
as
you
can
see,
pebb
will
be
restoring
plant
design
in
most
cases
to
very
closely
to
pre-pandemic
levels
or
even
even
out
pre-pandemic
levels.
So
I
think
this
is
a
win
because
we're
able
to
at
least
restore
the
medical
plan,
the
the
benefits
that
relate
specifically
to
medical
expenses
that
were
cut
during
the
last
round
of
budget
cuts.
We
were
able
to
restore
them
and
we
were
able
to
fund
them
for
the
next
three
years,
and
so
this
was
a
big
win
for
members.
D
In
my
opinion,
and
in
I'm
excited
that
we
were
able
to,
you
know
to
at
least
restore
that
portion
of
those
benefits.
So
with
that,
I
will
stop
and
take
any
questions
on
this
portion.
D
So
we're
rich
for
the
record.
We
did
not
have
the
low
deductible
plan.
That
is,
that
was
something
that
was
introduced
this
year.
Actually,
so
the
the
point
of
having
different
plan
options
is
just
for
that,
so
that
people
have
different
options
for
what
fits
their
need
right.
So
the
cdhp
that
is
a
high
deductible
plan.
D
It
usually
has
the
lowest
premium,
but
it's
got
a
you
know:
pretty
significant
deductible
you're,
looking
at
fifteen
hundred
dollars
or
three
thousand
dollars
for
a
family,
an
employee
or
a
family,
and
before
the
plan
pays
anything
so
members
who
are
relatively
healthy,
who
don't
use
their
insurance.
They
tend
to
like
this
plant
because
their
premiums
are
low
and
they
really
don't
plan
on
on
having
to
meet
that
deductible
thing,
but
they
need
insurance
for
the
sake
of
having
insurance
and
having
that
safety
net.
D
But
then
you've
got
the
epo
or
the
hmo,
and
those
are
usually
those
appeal
more
to
the
more
sickly
crowd
that
you
know
might
access
benefits
more
often,
and
so
those
folks
are
usually
more
comfortable
with
paying
a
higher
premium
and
knowing
that,
when
they
go
to
the
doctor,
it's
going
to
cost
them
a
20
copay.
C
D
Copay,
depending
on
what
what
kind
of
benefit
they
access,
and
so
what
that
is
called
in
the
insurance
world
is
actuarial
value,
and
that
is
the
difference
between
you
know
what
you
pay
up
front
versus.
What
is
what
is
provided
in
benefits,
so
the
actuarial
values
we
tried
to
do
here
is
you
have
to
you,
have
to
spread
them
out
enough,
so
that
people
have
choices.
D
If
you
look
at
this,
the
actuarial
value
that
it's
the
bottom,
the
bottom
line
of
the
chart,
we
kind
of
try
to
spread
out
the
actual
actuarial
value
of
the
plans,
and
so
in
doing
so
that
copay
plan
is
in
the
middle,
it's
between
the
the
high
deductible
and
between
the
hmo,
and
so
we
had
to
kind
of
finagle,
with
the
benefits
a
little
bit
to
ensure
that
we
could
get
that
copay
plan
in
the
middle
and
that
it
was
still
enough
spread
between
all
three
plans.
D
And
so
there
was
a
little
bit
of
of
tweaking
their
of
plan
design
to
get
that
to
fit.
And
that's
why
you
see
a
little
bit.
You
see
a
slight
difference
in
the
hmo
plan
and
the
you
know
there
are
the
out-of-pocket
masses
on
the
other
plans
as
well.
So
hopefully
that
answers
the
question.
Yes,
it.
B
H
Thank
you
chair,
so
much
for
the
question
I
wanted
to
ask
about
your
incurred
rolling
12
much
12-month
trend
chart
a
little
short
for
me,
I'd
like
to
see
it
go
back
to
maybe
2016.
H
and
what
those
trends
look
like
to
kind
of
see
what
a
more
like
normalized
fluctuation
of
use
looks
like
over
a
longer
period
of
time,
and
I
I'm
also
concerned
and
would
like
some
clarification
on
the
statement
you
made
about
the
difference
between
the
black
line
and
the
green
line
being
unbudgeted
in
part,
because
one
of
the
conversations
we
had
during
session
was
the
reason
we
were
proposing
to
keep
the
ibnr
and
catastrophic
reserve
levels.
So
high
is
to
help
endure
those
kind
of
unpredictable
swings.
D
D
The
difference
there
is
that
you
want
to
avoid
using
them
as
much
as
possible
because
they
have
to
be
backfilled
they.
So
in
order
to
backfill
them.
If
you
use
them,
you
have
to
backfill
them,
which
means
that
that
then
gets
passed
along
to
the
employee
in
the
in
the
form
of
a
higher
premium
right.
You
need
to
be
able
to
collect
that
extra
that
extra
funding
in
order
to
backfill
that
account,
and
so
eventually
it
does.
You
see
it
in
in
rates,
so
those
reserve
categories
are
there
it's
a
great
safety
net.
D
It
is
what
you
what
we
need
as
a
plan
you
know
to
to
endure
major
catastrophes,
especially
for
example,
if
we
do
have
a
lot
of
high
cost
claims
which
you'll
see
upcoming.
You
know
this
is
something
that
we're
concerned
about,
but
you
know
we
had.
I
believe
it
was.
D
Two
years
ago
we
had
a
member
with
a.
I
believe
it
was
somewhere
around
seven
million
dollars
in
claims.
When
all
was
said
and
done.
This
is
not
something
that
pebb
had
had
budgeted
for
right.
This
was
not
a.
This
was
an
anomaly
in
trend
in
something
that
we
would
not
normally
experience
for
one
member,
and
so
it
made
a
significant
impact.
D
So
it's
things
like
that
that
those
reserves
are
meant
to
to
use
as
a
safety
net,
but
remember
if
you
use
them
as
a
safety
net
you're
going
to
have
to
collect
those
funds
in
the
future,
and
so
you
end
up.
You
know,
with
increased
premiums
to
to
backfill
that.
H
So
I
guess
I'm
curious
about
how
using
those
reserves,
because
they've
been
increasing
right,
we've
been
seeing
them
increase
over
a
period
of
time.
How
using
those
would
change
premiums
more
than
what
you're
currently
putting
into
those
reserves
today
through
the
premiums
that
are
in
place
today.
So
I
guess
I'm
not,
I'm
not
understanding
how
using
them
would
increase
premiums
if
we're
consistently
seeing
them
creep
up
like.
H
Is
there
a
cap
or
a
floor
on
those
that
we
have
to
be
aware
of,
and
if
we
exceed
those
is,
does
that
create
a
requirement
to
increase
premiums?
What
does
that
look
like.
D
Laura
rich
for
the
record,
so
imagine
the
reserves
as
a
savings
account.
You
have
a
certain
amount
in
your
savings
account
that
is
relative
to
your
yearly
paycheck.
As
your
paycheck
increases,
your
savings
account
is
going
to
want
to
increase
as
well.
If
you
want,
if
you
want
to
continue
that
relativity.
D
However,
if
you
have
to
dip
into
savings
because
you
have
let's
say
a
a
a
furlough
or
you
lost
your
job
and
you
have
to
dip
into
that
you're
going
to
have
to
make
that
that
same
amount
of
money
and
more
the
next
year
in
order
to
be
able
to
backfill
into
that
savings
account
right,
and
so
this
is
it's
similar
to
that.
Our
our
ibnr
and
catastrophic
reserve
levels
are
set
based
on
our
claims
experience
and
so,
and
I'm
trying
I
have
an
actuary
here
that
can
probably
give
you
the
actuary.
D
You
know
terms
for
this.
I'm
trying
to
put
it
in
you
know:
non-actuary
normal
people
speak.
So
it's
it's
an
it's
a
reserve
level
that
fluctuates
based
on
our
claims
experience.
So
if
we've
got
100
million
dollars
in
claims
and
the
next
year
we
have
120
million
dollars
in
claims
that
reserve
level
the
requirements
increase,
and
so
every
year
that
would
increase-
and
that's
typically,
what's
happening
right,
because
the
cost
of
health
care
is
increasing.
We've
got
up
until
you
know.
D
Up
until
this
year
we've
had
membership,
that's
been
either
increasing
or
pre-steady
right,
and
so
the
plan,
those
those
reserve
levels
have
been
increasing,
but
it's
relative
to
the
expenditures
of
the
plan,
and
so
that
that
is
a
requirement
that
the
that
goes
into
the
overall
budgeting
of
the
program.
And
so,
if
you,
if
you
dip
into
those,
you
have
to
refill
them.
B
J
D
So
laura
rich
for
the
record.
Thank
you
senator
for
the
question
so
remember
that
the
first
thing
that
I
have
to
clarify
is
that
excess
reserves
and
I'm
assuming
you're,
focusing
on
excess
reserves
correct
okay,
so
excess
reserves
are
projected,
and
so
it's
constant
it's
a
constant
kind
of
moving
target
based
on
you
know
what
we're
seeing.
D
Obviously,
the
projection
in
january
of
2020
looked
a
lot
different
than
the
projection
in
february
of
2021
right
and
so
there's
there's
the
access
reserves
are
always
a
moving
target
based
on
what
we're
seeing
in
our
experience
in
our
you
know,
claims
when
the
pep
board
met
in
december
to
discuss
and
approve
these
policies.
D
D
B
D
Our
budget
when,
when
our
budget
was
set-
and
so
we
were
looking
at
about
somewhere
in
the
vicinity
of
46
million
dollars
or
so
now
out
of
those
46
million
dollars,
we
had
some
some
already
allocated
expenditures,
for
example
the
medicare
hra,
the
the
difference
between
eleven
dollars.
D
We
were
going,
the
pep
board
had
originally
cut
it
to
11
per
year
of
service
and
during
during
the
the
last
session,
the
pub
the
legislature
then
allocated
that
using
or
restored
that
using
excess
reserves,
and
so
we're
funding
those
are
funded
and
a
few
other
things
are
funded
as
well,
using
they're,
already
tagged
expenditures,
and
so
that
brought
that
down
quite
a
bit
and
we
used
about
26
million
dollars
of
the
46
million
spread
over
three
years.
D
So
that's
about
8.7
million
dollars
a
year
that
8.7
million
will
be
on
the
interim
finance
committee
agenda
tomorrow
and
will
be
discussed
as
well.
So
it
really
the
26
million,
is
spread
throughout
three
years,
even
though
it
is
projected
projected
excess
for
this
plan
year
and
the
reason.
Why
is
because
of
the
volatility
of
health
care
right
now,
and
you
know
we
just
don't
feel
comfortable
spending
down
all
of
that
because
of
the
just
the
state
of
the
world
right
now,.
J
B
D
So
I
think
we
can
skip
this
one.
This
was
the
reports
on
audited
financial
statements.
I
think
this
one's
yeah,
so
we
can
go
to
5.3,
which
is
the
utilization
of
pub
for
the
plein
year,
ending
june
30th
of
2021..
So
this
is
we're
going
from
talking
about
our
current
situation
to
now
talking
about
what
happened
in
plan
year
2021,
so
that
is
july,
1st
of
2020
to
june
30th
of
2021.,
so
utilization
or
the
first
one
is
utilization
for
the
self-funded
consumer-driven
health
plan.
D
That's
our
cehp
medical
costs
decreased
here
by
6.8
on
a
pm
pm
basis,
but
overall
medical
spend
was
down
8.3
in
2021
over
2020,
and
that
is
that's
that
claims
depression
that
I've
been
talking
about.
D
So
due
to
the
shutdowns
we
we
saw,
the
a
lot
of
care
was
postponed,
and
this
is
why
we
are
seeing
an
increase
in
utilization
today,
because
all
of
that
delayed
care
and
those
delayed
procedures
and
surgeries
are
now
getting
scheduled.
D
Not
just
that,
but
also
that
delayed
care
has
increased
the
need
for
more
costly
care
right.
So
things
like
maybe
a
stage
one
cancer
is
now
potentially
a
stage
stage
three
cancer.
So
all
of
those
costs
that
didn't
happen
in
2021
are
now
happening
in
2022.
D
high
cost
claimants.
These
are
claimants
that
have
these
are
members
with
claims
over
100
000.
We
monitor
these
very
closely
because
just
a
few
of
these
claims
can
have
a
very,
very
significant
impact
on
the
plan.
As
you
heard
me
say
that
seven
million
dollar
member
was
obviously
a
high
cost
claimant.
Some
examples
of
high
cost
claims
are
premature.
Babies
again,
we
call
them
the
million
dollar
babies.
D
They
can
be
upwards
of
a
million
dollars
easily
new
to
this
category.
That
was
cobin.
We've
seen
several
high-cost
claims
for
a
covenant.
Diagnosis
come
through
and
if
a
member
gets
hospitalized
and
put
on
a
ventilator
and
maybe
has
to
get
airlifted
to
another
hospital
to
get
a
higher
level
of
care,
those
costs
quickly
go
up
and
end
up
on
that
high
cost
claimant
category
top
costs
by
clinical
clinical
classifications
are
pretty
consistent.
D
Year-To-Year
cancer
is
always
a
top
driver
here,
er
visits
and
and
also
urgent
care
visits
dropped,
but
the
cost
per
er
visit
skyrocketed
on
the
plan
by
87.8
percent.
This
is
largely
because
of
the
pandemic
and
the
higher
degree
of
emergent
cases
that
we
were
seeing.
D
Prescription
utilization
wasn't
as
affected
by
the
pandemic
overall
cost
increased
5.4,
which
is
you
know,
expected
the
plan
picked
up.
Most
of
those
increases
members
paid
less
than
one
percent
more
in
plan
year,
21
over
plan
year
20,
but
the
plan
paid
almost
70
percent.
More
so
next
slide
is
the
epl.
D
So
on
the
epo,
this
is
a
little
different.
The
epo
is
similar
to
an
hmo
for
those
of
you
who
are
not
familiar
regional
plan.
Despite
claims
depression,
medical
costs
on
the
epo
still
increased.
Overall
costs
were
up
about
2.3
percent
and
when
you
take
into
account
the
reduction
in
in
members,
the
pm
pm
per
month
costs
increased
about
8.9
percent.
So
we
didn't
see
the
same
claim.
D
Suppression
on
the
epo,
as
we
did
with
the
with
the
high
deductible
plan
members
on
the
epo,
are
typically
like,
I
said
sicker
than
those
on
the
cdhp,
but
we're
seeing
a
lot
of
the
same
trends
happening
here
again.
D
The
high
cost
claimants
account
for
almost
a
third
of
the
medical
costs
to
the
plan,
and
the
plan
saw
more
of
these
high-cost
planets
in
21,
with
not
just
more
in
volume,
but
also
higher
than
normal
cost
as
well
again,
as
you
can
see,
cancer
here
is
the
is
the
top
cost
in
clinical
classifications
similar
to
the
cdhp.
D
However,
the
interesting
thing
that
we
see
here
is
that
infections
made
it
to
the
top
three
lists,
which
is
not
usually
what
you
see
in
this
in
these
categories.
So
it's
probably
safe
to
say
that
we
had
a
couple
of
high
cost
covic
covet
cases
here,
which
is
probably
why
you're
seeing
this
category
in
the
top
three,
we
had
similar
er
and
urgent
care
utilization
and
costs
here,
except
for
er
cost,
didn't
jump
quite
as
much
as
on
the
cdhp.
D
And
then
network
utilization
very
high
on
this
plan,
because
there
is
no
out
of
network
benefit
on
the
epo.
Epo
is
a
regional
plan,
and-
and
so
it's
it's
different
than
the
cdhp,
where
you
do
have
an
out
of
network
benefit,
so
you're,
going
to
see
a
very
high
network
utilization
here.
D
Rx
on
this
plan
is
also
very
similar
to
the
cdhp
overall
prescription
costs
increased
about
eight
percent.
The
one
thing
that
should
be
pointed
out
here
is
that
we
added
a
new
copia
copay
assistance
program
to
this
plan
and
without
going
into
a
lot
of
complex
details
about
the
program,
because
it
is
very
complex.
The
copay
assistance
plan
takes
manufacture
dollars
that
drug
makers
are
willing
to
give
to
new
patients
and
then
spreads
them
out
throughout
the
year.
D
In
order
for
the
plan
to
leverage
every
dollar
that
that
drug
manufacturer
is
willing
to
give
and
without
that
program,
what
happens
is
that
we
only
get
a
percentage
of
what
that
drug
manufacturer
is
willing
to
provide
in
co-pay
assistance,
because
once
that
member
meets
their
out
of
pocket
or
their
deductible,
they
just
stop
providing
co-pay
assistance.
D
So,
in
the
end
with
this,
with
this
program,
the
patient
ends
up
benefiting
because
they
typically
get
that
drug
at
little
to
no
cost
and
because
they're
able
to
apply
those
manufactured
dollars
and
the
plan
gets
to
apply
the
unused
portion
outside
of
their
copay
to
reduce
spending
overall
to
the
plant,
but
because
that
isn't
taking
into
account
into
the
overall
data.
That's
what
usually
happens.
This
happened
on
the
cbhp
the
first
year.
We
did
this.
The
numbers
look
very
skewed
on
the
first
year
of
the
program
so
you're.
D
D
This
is
not
that
the
pep
pebcova
19
costs
are
not
included
in
the
packet,
but
I
thought
it
was
interesting
to
show
how
kovid
impacted
the
plan.
This
is
only
for
the
self-funded
plans.
Only
obviously
the
hmo
in
southern
nevada,
which
is
fully
insured,
is
excluded.
D
You
can
see
that
the
bulk
of
the
costs
were
for
treatment
and
hospitalization,
it's
probably
safe,
to
say
that
actual
utilization
of
testing
was
much
higher
but,
as
I
explained
earlier,
a
lot
of
those
testing
costs
are
not
being
billed
to
the
plan,
at
least
not
yet
because
they're
being
picked
up
either
by
the
feds
or
by
other
funding
channels
like
like
the
state,
for
example,
so
the
the
the
testing
costs
are
probably
lower
than
what
you'd
expect
here.
The
vaccine
costs
are
attributed
to
administration
fees,
so
the
vaccine
itself
is
free.
D
That
is
not
charged
for
the
vaccine.
However,
as
with
most
other
vaccines,
there's,
usually
an
administrative
cost
associated
with
it
and
again,
in
this
case,
like
many
of
the
of
the
costs
of
vaccines
and
vaccinations,
are
not
billed
to
the
insurer,
because
no
insurance
information
is
being
collected
when
folks
go
and
get
their
vaccine.
D
D
It
doesn't
doesn't
track
the
claims.
Doesn't
it
doesn't,
handle
the
paying
of
claims
right.
We
pay
hpn
a
monthly
per
member
per
month
fee
to
administer
the
plan
and
pay
the
claims
and
the
division
of
insurance,
just
like
with
all
other
fully
insured
products
has
oversight
and
authority
over
these
types
of
plans,
the
hmo
plan
did
not
experience
the
same
suppression
that
other
insurers
did
in
plan
year,
21
because
of
their
capitation
model.
D
You
can
see
that
diabetes
is
a
huge
driver
on
this
plan.
Er
utilization
was
down.
The
costs
were
up
again,
similar
to
what
we
saw
on
the
cdhp
average
or
I'm
sorry
on
the
epo,
not
cdhp.
Average
number
of
prescriptions
per
person
is
also
very
high
on
this
plant.
It's
50
percent,
higher
than
on
comparable
peer
plants,
a
couple
of
things
that
are
not
on
this
slide,
but
I
wanted
to
point
out:
isn't
it
is
in
the
the
packet
utilization
for
inpatient
services
here?
D
Dropped,
but
outpatient
services
received
pretty
remain
pretty
steady,
but
utilization
professional
services
increased
by
8.7
bed
days
also
increased
here
by
25
percent,
which
is
different
because
on
the
cdhp
they
actually
decreased.
D
Mental
health
disorders
increased
significantly
on
the
cdh
around
the
on
this
plan,
almost
13,
but
the
costs
were
up
dramatically
almost
actually
over
100
and
alcohol.
Related
disorders
on
this
plan
increased
by
241.
D
We've
seen
this
also
on
the
self-funded
side,
but
they
were.
It
was
much
less,
it
was
more
in
the
20
range.
We
didn't
see
the
100
increase
in
cost
that
that
the
hmo
saw.
D
B
Thank
you
very
much.
Utilization
has
always
been
something
that
I've
been
very
interested
in
and
tried
to
track,
and
I
think
over
the
next
few
years
being
able
to
track
this
and
see
what
the
actual
impacts
of
covered
were
and
in
long
term,
because
we
have
folks
that
still
have
not
recovered,
and
I
think
that's
another
component
that
we're
going
to
need
to
watch
out
for
moving
forward
as
far
as
utilization
goes.
B
So
with
that
questions
from
committee
members
on
the
utilization
component.
D
Perfect:
okay,
laura
rich
again
for
the
record
member
communication.
D
There
there's
in
your
packet,
there's
a
whole
lot
of
information
that
is
included
here,
including
our
communications
plan
and
specific
dates
and
information
on
what
went
out,
but
I
think
I'm
just
going
to
give
the
committee
a
high
level
overview
of
what
kind
of
communication
that
we
use
to
communicate
with
our
members.
D
This
year
has
been
a
lot
of
communication
just
because
of
the
plethora
of
changes
we've
had
also
with
not
just
with
our
contracts
and
with
our
vendors,
but
because
of
covid,
and
you
know
everything
everything
else
going
on
in
the
world
right
now.
We
have
we've
released
a
lot
of
coveted
communication,
not
just
about
coverage,
but
also
about
where
you
can
get
your
flu
shot.
You
know
anything
related
to
to
providing
information
and
resources
about
coven
has
been
released
by
pebb
in
newsletters,
and
things
like
that
as
well.
D
As
I
said,
we
have
plan
benefit
changes,
and
so
a
lot
of
communication
has
been
released.
On
that
we've
sent
out
letters,
we've
sent
out
emails
different.
We
used
different
mechanisms
for
depending
on
what
kind
of
communication
it
is.
We
had
network
changes
that
was
very
important
to
communicate,
and
so
a
lot
of
information
went
out,
but
on
that
open
enrollment
meetings,
we
are
we've
been
having
offering
virtual
open
enrollment
meetings
for
the
last
couple
years
and
we're
going
to
do
that
again
this
year
and
it
seems
to
be
working.
D
D
Also,
we've
been
continuing
continuing
our
flu
shot
clinics.
We've
also
had
a
couple
copic
clinics
as
well,
and
we're
constantly
releasing
these
quarterly
newsletters
to
keep
everybody
informed
on
what
changes
are
happening
within
pebb
also
for
medicare
retirees
we
do.
We
have
continued
our
pre-medicare
meetings
to
ensure
that
those
who
are
aging
into
medicare
understand
the
process
and
understand
the
requirements.
The
peb
requirements
for
that
we've
also
sent
out
many
hra
cap
reminders.
So
back
in,
I
believe
it
was
november
of
2020.
D
We
implemented
a
cap
for
the
hra
accounts
and
so
we've
been
sending
out
reminders
before
that
cap
is
implemented.
Every
may
and
the
medicare
open
enrollment
reminders
as
well.
Every
medicare
open
enrollment
period
we've
got
medicare
retirees
who
fail
to
use
the
peb
vendor
to
enroll
into
their
medicare,
their
medicare
plans,
and
so
we
lose
them
because
they
terminate
off
the
plan
and
that
can
really
complicate
things
for
those
members.
D
B
Not
seeing
any
thank
you
very
much
for
all
the
work,
especially
with
the
retirees
and
the
medicare.
I
know
once
you
get
close
to
medicare
age,
your
phone
starts
ringing
off
the
hook
and
they
all
tell
you
a
little
bit
different
stories
so
being
able
to
come
to
pebb
and
get
the.
What
you
really
need
to
know
when
you
retire
is
very
helpful,
especially
with
all
the
folks.
We
have
retiring
what
we
heard
earlier.
B
So
with
that,
I
believe
we
can
go
to
item
number
sub
five
under
four.
The
independent
actuarial
value
of
post-employment
health
and
welfare
benefits.
D
Correct
and
I
am
going
to
pass
this
portion
of
the
presentation
to
mr
andrew
mr
andrew
white
from
aeon
to
provide
a
brief
summary
of
the
opeb
liabilities.
N
My
name
is
actually
andrew
witty
with
white
works
as
well.
I'm
sorry,
oh,
no,
it's
a
very
unnatural
name.
So
in
any
case,
I
work
for
aeon
and
our
job.
This
past
year
was
to
value
your
postcard
medical
plan,
and
I
want
to
give
you
some
context
here.
So
basically,
what
we
do
is
you
you
have.
N
You
have
a
plan
that
you're
providing
benefits
for
people
who
are
no
longer
working
for
the
state
and
the
way
the
accounting
works
is
you're
you're
supposed
to
accomplish
these
individuals,
while,
while
they're
employed
for
you
and
you
have
to
have
a
reserve
on
your
books.
So
typically,
what
happens
is
the
pay,
as
you
go
cost,
which
is
we
estimate
to
be
about?
50
million
dollars
is
lower
than
the
accounting
cost,
which
we
estimate
to
be
about.
It
varies
by
year,
but
in
the
70
85
million
dollar
range.
N
For
I'm
not
sure
if
you
want
to
change
pages
here,
but,
for
example,
page
266
of
this
report
shows
the
accounting
expense
the
last
couple
years-
75
million
and
85
million,
and
that's
in
contrast
to
the
benefit
payments
which,
as
I
said,
run
40
to
50
million
per
year
for
the
post
employment
benefits.
N
The
a
couple
key
things
about
this
plan
that
I
think
are
very
important
for
the
group
to
to
know
is
a
lot
of
states
have
post-traumatic
medical
benefits,
but
a
lot
of
entities,
including
the
state
of
nevada,
have
tried
to
pull
away
from
them
over
the
course
of
time
and
specifically
for
you
all.
N
N
So,
for
example,
there
were
about
thirteen
thousand
eligible
active
employees
four
years
ago,
as
of
two
years
ago,
that
number
had
dropped
to
ten
thousand
and
it'll
continue
to
decline.
Obviously,
as
people
have
attrition
out
of
the
plan,
the
accounting
cost
is
based
upon,
what's
called
a
look-back
method,
so
the
the
accounting
cost
is
actually
based
upon
the
fiscal
year.
2021
accounting
cost
is
based
upon
basically
activity
from
7
1
19
through
6
30
20..
N
So
it's
called
a
look
back
period
because
you're
actually
kind
of
pulling
going
back
a
year
to
estimate
how
much
the
liability
or
how
much
the
growth
and
the
benefits
were
in
that
particular
year
and
that's
in
order
to
be
able
to
provide
numbers
on
a
timely
basis
so
that
when
you
know
what
your
benefit
you
know
your
accounting
expenses
during
the
year
rather
than
having
to
wait
till
the
year,
is
over,
which
would
be
complicated
or
difficult
to
deal
with.
That
would
say
the
plan
is
basically
unfunded.
N
You
don't
have
any
assets
backing
it
up,
so
the
interest
rate
to
discount
future
liabilities
is
below
3
percent.
So
that
makes
the
plan
look
quite
expensive
and
in
fact
the
liability
of
the
plan
is
in
the
one
five
1.5
billion
dollar
range
and
it's
an
unfunded
liability
sounds
worse
than
it
is,
though,
because
the
discount
rate
we're
using,
as
I
said,
is
below
three
percent.
You
know
two
and
a
half
percent.
It's
like
that
level.
N
B
You,
mr
woody
with
that
committee
members,
are
there
any
questions.
B
Not
seeing
any
questions
from
any
members
at
this
time,
so
thank
you
very
much.
We
appreciate
you
sitting
through
the
meeting
with
us
today.
Thank
you.
Thank.
N
B
B
G
Irvin
k-e-n-t
e-r-v-I-n
for
the
nevada
faculty
alliance.
We
work
to
empower
faculty
to
be
fully
engaged
in
our
mission
to
help
students
succeed.
I'd
like
to
thank
all
the
committee
members
and
the
presenters
committee
members
for
your
questions
and
oversight
of
these
benefits
program
and
the
last
point
I
would
like
to
comment
on
the
ending
of
retiree
health
care
benefits
for
post
2011
hires
folks,
who
are
hired
in
2011
in
the
state,
will
have
15
years
the
former
vesting
period
for
health
care
benefits
in
2026.
G
That's
coming
up
and
that's
when
we
will
find
our
retirees
out
of
state
service
starting
to
be
left
in
the
lurch
without
any
state
subsidies
for
their
health
care
benefits,
whereas
other
public
employees
in
the
state
county
and
many
municipal
employees
will
have
retiree
benefits
and
contribute
to
the
non-competitive
nature
of
state
employment.
So
just
keep
that
on
your
radar
screen.
Thank
you.
B
B
I
want
to
thank
mr
hearts
and
ms
kaufman
and
all
the
staff
that
have
educated
me
on
this
issue
and
even
though
married
to
a
state,
employee
and
the
mother
of
a
state
employee,
still,
health
care
is
very,
very
complicated
and
it's
nice
to
be
able
to
have
these
conversations
and
make
sure
that
there's
a
public
record
on
what
types
of
benefits
the
state
is
providing
to
our
state
employees,
it's
an
integral
part
of
being
able
to
keep
state
employees.
So
thank
you
all
very
much.
B
We
have
ifc
tomorrow
so
to
those
that
I'll
see
tomorrow
morning
have
a
good
evening
and
everyone
we
are
adjourned.
Thank
you
all
very
much.
Thank
you.
Chair.