Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPension General_Documentation_Tab 14_05/07/2007• MEMORANDUM Village of Tequesta Clerk's Office TO: Members of the General Pension Board FROM: Lori McWilliams, Village Clerk DATE: April 16, 2007 SUBJECT: Discussion and Possible Action on Increasing the Multiplier During a recent Staff Meeting with the Village Manager and Senior Management, it was requested that the General Employee Pension Board address a possible increase in the multiplier. A multiplier increase was done in March 2005 for the Public Safety Pension Board and as such, I • have attached minutes of the 11/9/04, 2/18/05 and 3/14105 meetings, the portion of Ordinance 598 that addresses the retirement benefit and a 3/15/05 letter from Mr. Palmquist who prepared an Actuarial Impact Statement to make the requested changes. It is requested that this Board review the attached materials for discussion and possible action of authorizing Mr. Palmquist to prepare an Actuarial Study. F:\My Documents\General Employees Pension\2007\Multiplier Memo.doc • ~r~~-~~s~u+~ MAR I ~ 2005 ~Qnn~rv~s-r~.~riorv •C;ABRIEL., ROEDER, SMI'~M & COMhANY ConsultarKs & Actuar7es 301 East Las Olas Blvd. • Suite 200 ^ Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301.2254 • 95~-527.181 B • FAX 954525-0083 March 15, 2005 James Weinand, Chairman Public Safety Officers Board of Trustees Village of Tequesta 357 Tequesta Drive Tequesta, Fl. 32960-6441 Re: Tequesta Public Safety Pension flan Dear Jim: As requested, we have prepared an Actuarial Impact Statement for an ordinance that makes the following changes for Public Safety Officer Plan Members: • 1. Benefit multiplier is increased to 3.0% for years sixteen through twenty-one 2. Benefit multiplier is increased to 3.0% for all years of service after twenty-five 3. Supplemental benefit is increased to $20.00 per year of service 4. Employee contributions increased from 5.0% to 6.1 % of pay for Firefighters Please have a member of the Board of Trustees sign the Statement. Then send it along with a copy of the proposed ordinance to Tallahassee. We welcome your questions and comments- Sincerely yours, - J. Stephen Palmquist Enclosures • • Willage ofi Tequesta Public Safety Officers Pension Plan Impact Statement -March 15, 2005 Description of Amendment These changes would apply to both Firefighter and Police Qfficers except for the change in employee contributions: 1. Benefit multiplier is increased to 3.0% for years sixteen through twenty-one 2. Benefit multiplier is increased to 3.09° for all years of service after twenty-five 3. Supplemental benefit is increased to $20.00 per year of service 4. Employee contributions increased from 5.0°~ to 6.1 % of pay for Firefighters Funding Implications of Amendment An actuarial cost estimate is attached. • Certification of Administrator believe the amendment to be in compliance with Part VII, Chapter 112, Florida Statutes and Section 14, Article X of the Constitution of the State of Florida. / Fo he Board of Truste$s Plan Administrator • Present Provision Before Chance • 1. Benefit Multiplier is 2.5% for years of service 16-21 2. Benefit Multiplier is 2.0% after 25 years of service 3. Supplemental Benefit is $5.00 4. Employee Contributions are 5.0% (Firefighters) Proposed Chance 1. Benefit Multiplier is 3.0% far years of service 16-21 2. Benefit Multiplier is 3.0% after 25 years of service 3. Supplemental Benefit is $20.00 4. Employee Contributions are 6.1% (Firefighters) Participants Affected All Active Police and Firefighters. Actuarial Assumptions and Methods Same as October 1, 2003 Actuarial Valuation Report with no exceptions. Some of the key assumptions/methods are: • Investment return - 8.0% per year Salary increase - 6.0% per year Cost Method - Aggregate SUPPLEMENTAL ACTUARIAL VALUATIpN REPORT Plan Village of Tequest8 Public Safety Officers Pension Trust Fund Valuation Date October 1, 20D3 Date of Report March 15, 2005 Report Requested by Board of Trustees Prepared by J. Stephen Palmquist Group Valued Active Firefighters and Police Officers Plan Provisions Being Considered for Change • Amortization Period for Any Increase in Actuarial Accrued Liability NA Summary of Data Used in Report NA Actuarial Impact ofi Proposal(s) See attached pages}. The changes are being funded by an increase in the Firefighters' contribution rate and by available Chapter 175 and Chapter 185 revenue. Special Risks Involved With the Proposal that the Plan Has Not Been Exposed to Previously None Oth®r Cost Considerations None Possible Conflicts With IRS Qualification Rules None ~~ ~- J teph n Palmquist, AS MAAA, FCA nrolled Actuary No. 02-1 60 • April 14, 2005 • A. attainment of age fifty-five (55) and the completion of six (6) years of credited service, or B. attainment of age fifty-two (52) and the completion of twenty-five (25) years of credited service. A Member may retire on his/her normal retirement date or on the first day of any month thereafter, and each Member shalt become 100% vested in his/her accrued benefit on the Member's normal retirement date. Normal retirement under the Plan is retirement from employment with the Village of Tequesta as a Police Officer or Firefighter on or after the normal retirement date. 2. Normal Retirement Benefit A Member retiring hereunder on or after his/her normal retirement date shall receive a monthly benefit which shall commence on his/her Retirement Date and be continued thereafter during the Member's lifetime, ceasing upon death, but with one hundred twenty (120) monthly payments guaranteed in any event. The monthly retirement benefit shall equal: 3.0% for the first 6 years of service 3.5% for the next 4 years of service 4.0% for the next 5 years of service • 3_OZ-S% for the next 6 years of service 2.0% for the next 4 years of service 3.0% for all years after 25 years r 3. Early Retirement Date A Member may retire on his/her early retirement date which shall be the first day of any month coincident with or next following the later of the attainment of age fifty (50) and the completion of six (6) years of credited service. Early retirement under the Plan is retirement from employment with the Village of Tequesta on or after the early retirement date and prior to the normal retirement date. 4. Early Retirement Benefit A Member retiring hereunder on his/her early retirement date may receive either a deferred or an immediate monthly retirement benefit payable for life, but with one hundred twenty (120) monthly payments guaranteed in any event, as follows: A. A deferred monthly retirement benefit which shall commence on what would have been his/her normal retirement date had he/she remained a Police Officer or Firefighter and shall be continued on the first day Page 13 of 35 Excerpt from Public Safety Officers 2/18/05 meeting minutes: • d) Report of Firefi titers Vote for Increa e g s d Funding for Extra Benefits Chair Weinand reported all the scenarios laid out by Mr. Palmquist had been presented to the firefighters and they had voted unanimously to increase their personal contributions to 6.1 % instead of 5%, to include extra benefits, which was Mr. Palmquist's option 6, which included changing the plan multiplier to 3% for years 16 through 21 and changing the multiplier for 25 years and over to 3%, and increasing the supplemental health insurance subsidy. Copies of all the ballots were included in the packets. They were going to use the supplemental monies now in reserve but would fall short, so were contributing another 1.1 % out of their paychecks. The Village contribution rate did not change. Chair Weinand reported the police contribution rate did not change-it was still 5%. Vice Chair Genco asked if there would be a point where the police department was benefiting from or being discriminated against because the firefighters were doing these additional benefits Chair Weinand advised they would get the benefit, too. Vice Chair Genco commented because the police and fire funds were commingled, State regulations required that one group could not receive a benefit that the other did not and it had to be equal. Chair Weinand reported the last time this went to • the Village Council they had been adamant about keeping the benefits the same for fire and police. The contribution rates could be different as long as benefits were the same. Vice Chair Genco commented that was because State funds were accepted. Mr. Bogdahn commented at some time down the road probably the police would ask to separate the fund. Finance Director Forsythe commented that was being tracked. Chair Weinand commented there were enough state funds for the police so that their contribution did not have to change, but there were not enough state funds for the firefighters so their contribution rate had to be increased to provide the benefits. Vice Chair Genco commented that this would be an actuarial impact issue in the future and it might legally affect state funds. Chair Weinand advised firefighters could not use police funds and police could not use firefighters funds-they had to stay separate for extra benefits. Vice Chair Genco commented one group might have to contribute more or less for the same benefit and if something happened at the State one class could be at a disadvantage, and as the assets got larger the board might want to think about separating the funds-probably in two to three years. Ms. Forsythe reported there were actually two sets of books-actually two plans, which was why astand-alone audit had not been required. They were presented to the State separated. Vice Chair Genco asked if any changes were needed to the plan document for these changes. Attorney Jensen advised the plan document would have to be • amended to incorporate the changes and be presented to the Village Council and to Steve Palmquist for his actuarial cost statement. Chair Weinand advised that Mr. Palmquist had already done the work but just had to put it into the proper form. MOTION: Vice Chair Genco made a motion to have Steve Palmquist provide a copy of the report which was authorized at the November meeting and for which an invoice in the amount of $2,935.00 had been received, and that Attorney Jensen make the changes to the plan documents, including boilerplate language she would provide to Attorney Jensen so that there could be an authorization resolution that could be presented to other entities whenever there was a contract as to who had signing authority and what that authority was. It was confirmed by Attorney Jensen that Mr. Palmquist would have already done the work, and there were several changes and he would put into the proper report format only those changes that applied to this. Boardmember Lucia expressed concern there would be additional charges; Chair Weinand commented he did not believe the extra charges would be extensive. Boardmember Lucia seconded the motion. Chair Weinand stated he would call Mr. Palmquist to get the cost for the accrual cost impact statement. Chair Weinand summarized that the motion was to authorize Attorney Jensen to amend the plan document, to include trustee certifications, and for • Mr. Palmquist to do an impact statement so that this could be moved forward to the Village Council. Motion carried by unanimous 3-0 vote. • Tequesta Public Safety Officers' Pension Board Special Meeting of 3/14/05 Page 9 • Genco questioned how Mr. Bogdahn would handle a situation such as WorldCom. Mr. Bogdahn in a situation where the value was going down he questioned the manager directly. Board member Lucia cautioned that the trustees still shared responsibility. Chair Weinand advised he was comfortable accepting Mr. Bogdahn's recommendation. Vice Chair Genco requested 3 (a) 3 (a) 2 to still keep the language "at least 90% of the equities shall be rated by a major rating service" and end the sentence there. Boardmember Sabin seconded the amended motion. Motion carried by unanimous 4-0 vote. Mr. Bogdahn commented he would make the amendments and a-mail; Attorney Jensen commented then hopefully the investment guidelines could be signed at the same time everything else was signed. Vice Chair Genco stated anything to do with the plan document should go to Village Council in April. Mr. Bogdahn was also to send a cover letter for the changes to the investment policy to the Village Manager and Charles Slavin and to the actuary. Attorney Jensen advised the changes would be effective 31 days from that. V. PAYMENTS TO BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED • a) Hanson, Perry & Jensen, P.A. - $339.95 MOTION: Vice Chair Genco made a motion to approve the payment of $339.95 to Hanson, Perry & Jensen, P.A. Boardmember Sabin seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 4-0 vote. VI. ANY OTHER MATTERS Changes to the Pension Plan were discussed. It was clarified that two items needed to be added: certification of trustees and benefit changes voted on at the last meeting. Ms. Carlisle asked if the whole ordinance was being changed in order to accept the amendments. Vice Chair Genco responded that when the pension plan was re-stated a year ago, there had been one ordinance with two exhibits, one for each pension plan. Attorney Jensen advised that in most municipalities this document was a part of the code, and she believed only the exhibit would be changed; however, the General Employees were also considering an amendment and in that case both exhibits would be changed and it would be presented to Village Council for their vote. Chair Weinand commented he was comfortable with moving forward with changes to the pension plan document provided that it took into consideration the new benefits and the language provided today. Attorney Jensen commented, • administrative authority provisions. Vice Chair Genco commented one of the big Tequesta Public Safety Officers' Pension Board Special Meeting of 3/14/05 Page 10 • things was amending the employee contribution to 6.1. Finance Department Director Forsythe had called Steve Palmquist because the contribution rates were different for fire and police employees, and reported Mr. Palmquist had said it was fine to have different contribution rates in the same plan. Vice Chair Genco commented Mr. Palmquist was basing it on the current census data and asked if when more people were retired if he looked at that. Chair Weinand responded he took the census data of what was in the plan now through retirement and he did not know what the changes would be from year to year, so he had to base on what the census information was today, but that was looked at through retirement. Attorney Jensen commented that Mr. Palmquist would apply assumptions to the benefit changes. Chair Weinand commented turnover rates were significant, also whether an older employee was replaced by someone younger, and it had to be based on today's data through retirement.. Attorney Jensen explained the same assumptions were applied to benefit changes and the mortality rate table was referenced, and he also was relying on employment termination rate and disability rate. Chair Weinand commented Mr. Palmquist was working on a cost impact statement for benefits that would be in State format, which would be provided to the State between first and second reading of the ordinance. MOTION Vice Chair Genco made a motion to revise the Pension Plan Document as outlined in Attorney Jensen's March 14, 2005 memorandum. Boardmember • Sabin seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 4-0 vote. It was clarified with Boardmember Lucia which motions he was voting on and which he had abstained due to conflict of interest. Mr. Lucia clarified on item IV (c) to amend the investment policy as presented, his vote was yes; on the plan document change his vote was yes, on the draft amendment his vote was yes, on V (a) payment to Bonni Jensen's firm, his vote was yes, and the revision to the plan document outlined in Attorney Jensen's memo his vote was yes. It was announced that the next meeting would be held May 10, 2005 at 8:00 a.m. unless there was an issue with the custodian agreement. VII. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion by Vice Chair Genco, seconded by Boardmember Sabin, and unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned at 10:17 a.m. Respectfully Submitted, Betty Laur • Recording Secretary BOARD OF TRUSTEES • TEQUESTA PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS PENSION TRUST FUND MEETING MINUTES November q, 2004 PAGE 4 being very low one year and very high the next must be reduced, and it would still be a couple of years before the 8% actuarial return would really be met. The board needed to manage at a 3-5 year term level, which was difficult because of the funding requirement. The board needed to do the type of investing that was best for the plan. Mr. Bogdahn explained that acore-type manager who could manage within the different investment styles was needed, because the fund did not have enough money to go out and hire separate small-cap, mid-cap, and large cap managers. V. NEW BUSINESS a) CLARIFICATION ON ACTION TAKEN LAST MEETING CONCERNING ACTUARIAL SERVICES AGREEMENT RFP Chair Weinand reported at the last meeting the board had agreed to have an actuarial report done every other year, but then realized they had a contract for an annual study. Chair Weinand wanted to be sure the boazd agreed to have a study • every other year on the odd years, with 2003 being the first odd year. Mr. Palmquist explained that his company had gone ahead with getting information and preparing a report for 2003, then there had been confusion with the board thinking they were supposed to only get reports every other year; however, his company currently had a contract for an annual report. The contract would be changed so that going forward there would be a report only on the odd years. MOTION: Vice Chair Genco made a motion that an actuarial evaluation report be done on the odd years at or around October 1. Boardmember Petrick seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 4-0 vote. b) ACTUARIAL REPORT DATED OCTOBER 1, 2003 Steve Palmquist provided a review of the October 1, 2003 actuarial report, and noted the 10-year investment return averaged 8.7%, and the 11-year average was also approximately 8.7%. There was a total net experience loss for fisca12003 of $108,000, which caused the annual cost of the plan to go up by .7% of payroll. Going forward there would be a permanent increase in the cost of the plan of about 7/ 10 of 1 % of payroll, which was roughly $10,000 annually. Vice Chair Genco questioned if the Village should make up the loss; Mr. Palmquist • responded the Village could certainly make up the loss, but he had never had an employer make up such a large loss immediately, and years in which there were BOARD OF TRUSTEES • TEQUESTA PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS PENSION TRUST FUND MEETING MINUTES November 9, 2004 PAGE 5 gains would even out the loss. Attorney Jensen advised that some employers put extra funds of $5,000 or $10,000 in annually to eat away at those sorts of losses. Chair Weinand asked if Mr. Palmquist knew a way to smooth out the Village's contribution. Mr. Palmquist responded that an asset smoothing method could be used, which was the difference between actual and expected return spread over five years. Discussion ensued, and Mr. Palmquist gave an example of how this could be done. Mr. Bogdahn suggested that a funding floor could be established. Vice Chair Genco commented she preferred the 5-year spread and would submit this to the Village Manager. Mr. Palmquist advised this Board would make that decision. Vice Chair Genco responded that it would have to be submitted to Finance and to the Manager for benefit requirements. Mr. Palmquist commented he would make a copy of the required arithmetic from one of his other reports to show the smoothing method. The next report would be done as of 10/1/OS and if the Board made a decision to use the smoothing method then from this point forward it would start from 10/1/03 to 04, and 04 to O5, so that the OS report would have two years smoothing, unless the Board wanted to start with 04. • Boardmember Sabin agreed with 5-year smoothing to start from 03, and not just for City funding but using it to measure return over a long period of time and just projecting and avoiding spikes and dips. It was easier to keep long-term focus when there were not large fluctuations. Boardmember Sabin questioned the salary increase assumption. Mr. Palmquist expressed concern that the police salary increases had been a lot more than expected and probably in 2005 that the assumption might be changed, but asked that he be allowed to examine this between now and 10/1/OS and come back with a recommendation for going forward. The salary increases were discussed in relation to the impact to the plan. Mr. Palmquist reviewed the information on page 4 of his report, which showed the effect on the plan of employee and city contributions and state funds. City costs rose significantly from one year to the next. There were cost increases of a little over 1 % of payroll because of changes in benefits, putting in the drop plan, supplemental benefits, change in multiplier, etc. State revenue was enough to cover all that, so the City cost was not affected, which was the purpose of the State revenue. Mr. Palmquist explained that the $120,000 that the Ciry was required to pay was for FY 2004, which was already over, and that the contribution rate was increasing. Mr. Palmquist advised that the basics of his report were what the City had to pay, what • the plan's funded ratio was (comparing the plan's assets to the value of benefits attributable to past service) - a ratio of 114%, which was one of the highest ratios of BOARD OF TRUSTEES • TEQUESTA PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS PENSION TRUST FUND MEETING MINUTES November 9, 2004 PAGE 6 all his clients, and was excellent, especially after three years of negative stock market returns. This also showed the plan was young with no retirees yet. Chair Weinand commented on page 2, which described supplemental benefits, that items 2, 3, 5 and 7 were changed City-wide and asked if state premiums could be used for those, since he understood the Attorney General's opinion was they could not. Mr. Palmquist responded there was nothing that said state revenue could not be used for those items. Attorney Jensen clarified the Attorney General's opinion and the change in the law, and that extra benefits were those benefits received by Police and Firefighters that the General Employees did not receive, and the cost was what was used rather than the actual benefit in order to compare apples to apples. The police, for example, had a 3% multiplier while General had a 2% multiplier; police could retire earlier than General employees; and police had supplemental benefits. If one looked at the cost of all those benefits that police had and General did not, that would be the cost to use for comparison purposes. Mr. Palmquist stated he had not done that, but believed the cost of all those benefits would be more than was being received in state • revenue. Mr. Palmquist explained in detail how the benefits were funded. Attorney Jensen noted on page two it was described in words. Mr. Palmquist explained the state revenue remained fixed but payroll was anticipated to continue to increase, so gradually the City would be paying for a part of the benefits. Including the 2004 revenue, the reserve for firefighters was $22,000 and for police was $50,000, for a total of $72,000 which would show as total reserves as of 9/30/04 between the two groups. The Village could only take credit for $75,000 in state funds, while the actual amount received was $130,000, leaving extra for more supplemental benefits. Vice Mayor Genco commented so long as property values continued to rise and insurance costs increased, the state funds would increase. Discussion ensued regarding the state effort to ensure that the addresses used for telecommunications tax were within the correct municipalities, which would affect the amount of state funds received. Mr. Palmquist advised that places like West palm Beach that had a lot of surrounding towns would likely see a big decrease because they were now getting revenues that the smaller towns should get. Mr. Gallagher asked how frequently employees would receive benefit statements, to which Mr. Palmquist responded they would do an annual report and benefit statements every other year and in the off year would just provide benefit statements. MOTION: Vice Chair Genco made a motion to accept Mr. Pahnquist's report and future 5- • year smoothing starting 10-1-03 and going forward. Boardmember Sabin seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 4-0 vote. Vice Chair Genco BOARD OF TRUSTEES • TEQUESTA PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS PENSION TRUST FUND MEETING MINUTES November 9, 2004 PAGE ~ requested the Finance Director be copied on this and asked Mr. Palmquist to do a cover memo to her. Mr. Palmquist asked the Board to consider a motion to allow him to review salary increase assumptions versus experience to come up with a recommendation for 2005. Vice Chair Genco asked that Mr. Palmquist do that and have it presented at the next meeting. Mr. Palmquist advised it could be done in the summer, but he would like to have it settled before working on the 10/1/OS report so that it would not be held up. Boazdmember Sabin asked what the Board would get when Mr. Palmquist did this study. Mr. Palmquist advised it would provide a recommendation on what he thought should be used going forward based on what he had seen. He would update the percentage increase and instead of one rate applied to everyone he would probably recommend salary increase rates tied to length of service. He would need a copy of the pay plan to see how the steps worked out, etc., so he would need further information. Vice Chair Genco asked that Mr. Palmquist provide that to the board for action at their next board meeting, to which Mr. Palmquist agreed. • The Northstaz representatives left the meeting at this point. c) Actuarial Impact Statements Regarding Supplemental Fund Benefits Mr. Palmquist commented on provisions the Board wanted his company to look at, the first of which was changing one of the alternate retirement dates from age 52 with 25 years of services to 25 years of service no matter how old you were. The next two items were changing the multiplier. Mr. Palmquist commented the description was found on page 26 of the actuarial report. In the middle of the page it said, normal retirement benefits and that showed the current multiplier depending on the length of service. Item 2 in the November 4'}' letter said change the multiplier to 3% per year-- 16through 21-and that would replace the 2-1 /2%. Number 3 said for years after 21 yeazs, change to 3% from 2%. Chair Weinand pointed out that should be after 25 years. Mr. Palmquist commented that the next item was supplemental benefits, and that was on page 26 almost at the bottom of the page-when we had any retirees they would get an additional benefit equal to $5 for each year of service, so if you retired after 20 years you would get an extra $100. The proposal was to raise the $5 to $20; so after 20 years you would get an extra $400, and it was generally recognized that the purpose of this was to help people pay for their health insurance. Mr. Palmquist commented the Board had not really asked for this but he had done some combinations of these just to see what the numbers would look like, and asked if there were any • questions. Boazdmember Sabin asked if these were base or extra benefits. Mr. BOARD OF TRUSTEES TEQUESTA PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS PENSION TRUST FUND MEETING MINUTES November 9, 2004 PAGE 8 Palmquist clarified all were extra, coming out of the State extra money. Mr. Palmquist directed attention back three pages to the first page of numbers where at the top it said, Police Officers Annual Required Contribution. Line K was the City contribution, and the numbers were projected for 2005. If the change was made to the 25 and out provision, the annual required contribution would go from $58,493 to $59,730. The next line down was State revenue. The amount for police was $67,000 and the base line was only $25,000, so they had a huge amount of money they could spend. The City contribution stayed at $33,000 if the retirement was changed to 25 and out, for this benefit number one. Skipping back to look at the firefighters' page, they would go from $145,000 to $156,000 to pay for 25 and out, and that would cost about $11,000 and there was enough State revenue to cover that-it would go from $50,000 to $61,000, and the City cost would be unaffected. It turned out for each of the items individually-the 25 and out, or the 3% for 16 to 21 or 3% after 25 years-there was enough State revenue to pay for any one of those. The right-hand column showed some of those combined together. For example, for firefighters, benefits 1, 2, and 4- the 25 and out provision, the 3% for years 16 to 21, and the $20 supplement-the cost went from $145,000 to $183,000, but there was not enough State revenue to cover all that, and the City or the employees would have to pay for it. If employees decided they wanted to pay for extra benefits, it would be mandatory that all employees pay. The firefighters and police did not have to choose the same combinations. Chair Weinand advised he thought the firefighters would want to increase their contribution 1-1/2% to have the extra later on to pay for their health insurance. Vice Chair Genco commented they might want to let State funds accrue for another couple of years and then there would be enough to fund that for both police and fire, and it would be simpler administratively to do the same for both funds. Vice Chair Genco commented 2% more out of someone's pay might be a hardship, and by waiting it would not have to come out of their paycheck. During ensuing discussion, Mr. Palmquist expressed his opinion police salaries would increase faster than State revenues, so in the future there would probably be a cost to the 25 and out at some future date. Chair Weinand commented the board did not need to make a decision on this today. Mr. Palmquist reviewed other benefit combinations, and it was clarified that if the numbers on line K were subtracted from the first amount, that would be the dollar amount for each combination. Chair Weinand thanked Mr. Palmquist for coming, and commented this was an employee decision and they would be informed to see if they wanted to do anything.. d) DISCUSSION REGARDING PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS' PENSION FUND ADMINISTRATOR