Public Retirement & Social Security Programs-Joint
Video
Transcript
23 documents
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin
- Processing date
- October 6, 2026
Unknown speaker
0:00
It's been a while, I'm venturing them almost in two minutes. I have two and a half. I have three. I have three. I have four years. I have four years. What is the changes? So, the majority of the changes... They always talk about it, but they talk about it to the doctors. Go to... Yeah, go to the... I don't know, but they did get a new proponent. They did take the breaks off.
Speaker 3
0:30
Yeah. It's been a place. And we've got three floors. I'll be perfectly honest. Nobody really knows what's going on. Somebody does. No, they really don't. - I'm so sorry but you didn't have to spend any money on it.
Speaker 6
0:43
So, it's just this hard shot of the road. Now they're trying to figure out the next year.
Speaker 9
1:06
- Yeah, they ripped off the line. This is a TRS. - I didn't. - Well, what about
Speaker 1
1:36
it in one year though? I didn't read an email, and then documents. I don't know how I can. I'm so sorry. He's been fighting fighters.
Speaker 2
1:39
Wasn't I ever fighting for everybody? Listen, are you on my team or not? I'm trying to help them with a group who sticks together. Amazing. I guess it's like a stucco. But it looks pretty. I think it's a realist. I can see for planners.
Speaker 15
2:09
This is something I need to have. I would only speak out loud if it was secret. This is so you have to get above your ass. I don't know what I would do. I don't know what I would do. - Okay.
Speaker 1
3:21
So this is like some wind-up or something. No, no. But ours had like... They always talk about a
Speaker 17
3:30
new building, but I don't think I'll understand.
Speaker 28
4:21
And I have to believe it, I may have to believe it.
Unknown speaker
4:51
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you. All right, members, we're going to call this meeting to order.
off consideration of approval of June 4th 2024 meeting minutes item B do I have a motion to approve I got a motion do I have a second second any discussion all in favor any opposed motion carries right item D overview of the summary of actuarial change actual evaluation data and results
oh sorry I skipped directly over C B C D all right well item C first consideration of a motion to authorize chairs to approve special expenses incurred by this sub by the committee do I have a motion I got a motion second any discussion on that motion all in favor any opposed motion carries all right now item D Jody if you would come and you are recognized state your name
for the record and you
Speaker 33
10:31
are recognized to present good afternoon I'm Jody Carrero and today I am here as the actuary for the pension review board and what is the pension review board you may ask well in the dark days of the previous century fire and police pensions were provided by individual funds for each different city pre-Lopfi and then Lopfi came in in 1983 and then everyone who had been hired after that
was Lopfi and everyone before that was in one of these individual plans well those individual city plans are governed by another board, which is the Pension Review Board, that uses the same staff as LOPF, it's the same folks, but they are the folks that do that. So what this is, is as asked for by the law, a review of what's going on with those local plans.
Well, if everybody had to be hired before 83, then since those plans had 20-year retirement, 20-and-out type retirement, everybody was eligible to retire back in 2003. And by now, everybody, except for one or two weird exceptions, everybody has retired from these plans, and these are all just retiree plans. So that gets us to what's in your packet. In your packet there is an Exhibit D is the report that we presented
to the Pension Review Board back in May and, well, in June was their meeting. The report's dated May 26th. And the first page of the cover letter there kind of shows you how that that number of plans has went down. Our firm's worked for the Pension Review Board for over 30 years. I don't know. I can't count beyond that. But there were about 200 plans that we valued when we started,
and those have consolidated into LOPFI or all the participants have passed away or some combination. But for the most part, they've all consolidated into LOPFI, and LOPFI pays the benefits for those remaining retirees. So now you can see the last four years here, 51, 41, 33, 31. There are 31 plans that are remaining that we valued at the end of last year.
Since the end of last year, there have been two police plans and five firefighter plans, so seven other plans have consolidated. It looks like about half of those, three or four of those, were because they did not have enough participants to form a board as is required by the law, and part of them were ones that had decided it was just time to consolidate
and let LOPFI pay the benefits instead of maintaining a local board. So with seven more, that means at the end of this year, we'll have 24 plans that we will value at the end of this year. So you can see there's still 485 participants. Each of those plans has its own assets and liabilities, and the unfunded liability from all that group is still several million dollars,
$14 million, $14,393 that you see there on the report. But you can also see that they have improved funding the last several years because of some of the efforts that have been made, and mainly because several of them have started putting in more money so that hopefully they can either increase their benefit or join LOPFI or both that is available. So the remainder of the cover letter just covers some of the hot spots.
The other thing on page three of that report is that the Pension Review Board and the work that we do watches for those that might be a projected insolvent plan. If we're looking at the stream of money that's coming in and the benefits that are going out, if it looks like it could use up all of its assets in a fairly short period of time, there's some interventions that are there that we can talk to the cities
and hopefully do that. There's very few of these left. Happy to the report that in the last 15 years that we've had that ability to talk with these projected insolvent plans, that most all of them have improved their funding and or consolidated with LOPFEE. In fact, two of the ones that are consolidating this year are ones that we've worked with for many years to get them improved,
and now they're to the point that they can consolidate and have their benefits guaranteed for the remainder of the lives of those participants. The only other thing I wanted to show you, and there's several pretty graphs in there. I know they're pretty because I generated them, just seeing if anybody was awake. But at the very end of the report is a listing of the cities that still have a local plan and you know it's a two page last two pages of the report and there are different metrics which
are described on the page before that that we use to kind of let them know where they're at and how they're doing and we show those on this page so if you think your area has one of these local plans that are still there, they would be listed on these two pages and you can kind of see based on the little color blips, the one, two, three, four, five, what kind of shape they are in, so to speak, from an actuarial standpoint. And that's all I have for you unless you have some
questions. All right, members, you've heard a report. Are there any questions? uh representative andrews thank you mr chair
Representative Wade Andrews
Unverified
17:12
um so mr jody it's basically what you're saying is if some of these plans that are going
to be insolvent um and the cities don't pay into them or fix it these retirees are just out of luck basically right
Speaker 34
17:29
uh i wish it was that simple uh yes and no or is there
Representative Wade Andrews
Unverified
17:38
some there is there's obligations to pay them
Speaker 33
17:42
even if the plan goes insolvent it's not been a tested theory legally but uh we we think it's kind of our opinion that the that the city does have an obligation that they have promised those benefits and and they have in writing done that so the city has an obligation there is
something in law that benefits can be proportionally reduced if the plan completely runs out of money but that has only been tested once and only lasted for a couple of months and all that was straightened out and everybody was so another question is um is this entirely the responsibility of
Representative Wade Andrews
Unverified
18:22
the local governments or are they going to come to the legislature and say we need money um i would not
Speaker 33
18:33
be surprised if somebody got close to being broke that they didn't come
to the legislature and say it was your fault can you help us pay for it uh but uh yeah it's these are the city's responsibility and gotcha and that's why we asked for and got some of the changes i mentioned about dealing with them on a projected basis so that it's several years away and there's time to correct you know get some more income in usually uh or do some other things to try to help the plans i
Representative Wade Andrews
Unverified
19:08
was looking here on page three it says do miss earl glenwood and nashville
are going to be depleted in 10 to 20 years do those cities have a plan in place or what to do or to have an estimation of they think they're going to have retirees roll off the plan in that time period or well
Speaker 33
19:28
i mean that was part of what went into the the projection was because the ages and the people that are drawing a
Representative Wade Andrews
Unverified
19:35
benefit right because okay because i just did rough math in my ahead of you said 1983 was the cutoff year right so 20 years later 03 those people would have been
about 41 if they started at 21 years old so you got like 37 more years potentially of these plans if i can do math right some yeah
Speaker 33
19:56
in rough terms yeah most of the board members and the people that from the locations are in their 70s okay they're talking to us that's the main you know they're they're the ones that are involved bible says
Representative Wade Andrews
Unverified
20:10
you lived 120 so let's see maybe there's more math on that what three score and ten okay my my friendly bad baptist is uh helping me out of here thank you
all right any other questions seeing none thank you sir appreciate your presentation that will there's no action necessary on that so that will take us to item e apers if miss fetcher if you will introduce yourself for the record and anyone who is joining you and then you are recognized to present
Speaker 51
20:58
e1 amy fetcher with apers we have two rules one
new rule and one that we're repealing. In your packet on the first one, this is a rule in response to Act 370 of 2025, which allowed district judges to be appointed as special judges immediately upon retirement. And so we had to make some changes so their benefits would not be suspended because there's the normal 180 days uh six months of separation normally so that's what that one's
about all right any questions members so these are review items so without objection we'll consider e1 reviewed e2 the other one
Speaker 51
21:49
is for the judicial retirement system and this is just repealing a that had some obsolete language in it that set specific times for the board to meet which they're really you know they do meet quarterly like the law says but they can move those meetings around
Speaker 59
22:07
so it's just obsolete language that we're
repealing any questions by members without objection we'll consider that one reviewed thank you thank you for your oh uh representative walker thank you
Speaker 40
22:22
mr chair um while miss betcher's at the um table can i
Representative Steven Walker
Unverified
22:28
ask a quick question is this in relation to the review item
that we just it's not that's why i tried to buzz in after
okay so that one's reviewed we've done that if if it's try to keep it pretty relevant to the purpose we're here
for which is retirement rules yes um
Representative Steven Walker
Unverified
22:49
it's just about the cola increase that was just recently changed um i just need some help understanding um why we did it and how it works um i know before i think just a few years ago before that we've done it forever to where it was a three percent um compounding cola increase and then here recently we changed it to where it
the lesser um you'll just have to explain that to me a little bit more to help me understand it i've had some constituents ask me about it here recently and and seeing you at the table made me think of it um but i'm assuming it's because the old way wasn't sustainable so we had to change things up um and then i'm wondering i'm trying to consolidate all this into one question and the other part that i'd like to know is why was it better to go this way than how we're doing it in the Arkansas teacher retirement to where it's a simple 3% COLA increase okay so that was in the
Speaker 51
23:51
2021 session and I was not at APERS at the time but I'll tell you what I've been told that that was based on actuarial assumptions and projections and that yes it's not sustainable where we are and so um i believe and jody may have to help me the uh anyone that was was the date july 1 of 2022 or i forget exactly but i think
Speaker 51
24:22
date uh was grandfathered in so they had to start uh employment with the state on july 1 of 2022 or after um and then to this point we've had no one retire under the new new law but yes it is uh not just a flat three percent anymore it's the lesser of the three percent or the cpiw cpiw and that's the part
Representative Steven Walker
Unverified
24:49
how does that work the cpiw part i'm gonna ask jody to
help us on that. That's where my confusion's at. I know it's a lesser of the two, and I
Speaker 51
25:01
wasn't sure how that part worked. I do believe, just to give you a little context, I know that the former director of APERS and some of the staff went around the state and did town halls, and the reason they chose that option to ask for in legislation is because they heard resoundingly that people didn't want their benefits cut. They would rather have things like that, and also on employees pay a
Speaker 54
25:23
higher employee contribution than have benefits cut. Jody, if you would state your
Speaker 33
25:29
name for the record. Jody Carrero, and now I'm the actuary for the Retirement Committee. The CPIW is one of two or three CPIs that the Department of Labor produces every month, and you can look it up online. It's out there. It's available. It is the one that most plans around the country that use that feel is closest to a retiree cost of living so it's it's just when they somebody says what inflation is that's one of the numbers that they might use to to say
what that is is to what that and so whatever that rate is for the 12 months that's what's applied for that unless it's over three percent and then it's it stops at three percent one other little quick thing is that colas haven't been three percent forever the three percent didn't go in until 99 2001 one of those two sessions and it was three percent all those years so majority of the people in aprons now is that that's what they're covered and everybody before that was
grandfathered up to the three percent so the colas have changed over the
Representative Steven Walker
Unverified
26:43
years okay do you know when And this was changed by any chance why we went this route instead of the way the Arkansas teacher retirement does
Speaker 33
26:53
it to where it's a 3% or a simple 3% COLA? I think the consensus was when they asked around was they preferred it to still be tied to something that was a COLA as opposed to because the teacher COLA kind of diminishes over time.
It gets less than 3% as time goes on since it's a simple. and so i think they the the membership liked that better and i agree that's why
Representative Steven Walker
Unverified
27:20
i'm asking these questions um i was just curious on how you guys went that route instead of the way arkansas teacher retirement i don't really like how that's done with arkansas teacher retirement because of like you said it diminishes it um if you've been retired for 20 30 years at three percent now originally what 1.6 percent or less depending on how bonuses were distributed but anyway um you
guys answered my question. I appreciate it and I appreciate the work you
do, Ms. Fetcher, but thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative. All right. Thank you, Ms. Fetcher. And that completes item E, item F, ATRS. Mr. White, if you would, state your name for the record. And you are recognized. We'll just take these one at a time members if you're
looking basically F F1 there is the full
list of a hundred and eighty seven pages of the rule but then you get down to item F2 and that's within that hundred and
eighty seven pages so I don't know how you're wanting to present those but F2 starts on page nine and so if you You just want
to take these one at a time, and I'll stop explaining your presentation. Go ahead.
Speaker 78
28:47
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mark White, Arkansas Teacher Retirement System.
Speaker 79
28:51
And yes, Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to do whatever is best for the committee, but I'll start just walking through these individually. Yeah, if we can just take them one at a time, and I've written down the page numbers if you don't happen to have them, so people can scroll to it real quick. Okay, and I do
Speaker 81
29:06
have the page numbers, so I'll try and mention those as well. Okay, great. All right, so thank you, Mr. Chairman. community members these rules changes we do have quite a few you had the full rule so that you see the context of those changes all of the changes I'm going to outline today are either implementing acts from the session or making technical corrections and changes and so I'll walk through
and explain these individually the first one page nine of that of the full rule section 10-207 act Act 938 eliminated the requirement that we have a board member who is a minority. The act changed that so it's simply an at-large position, and so we're changing the language of the rule to match the act. Any questions on that one? Without objection, we'll consider that one
Speaker 79
29:51
reviewed. We'll go on to the next. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 81
29:55
The next one is on page 19. This is a change to Section 10-302 regarding confidentiality. We're concerned because if you read our existing confidentiality language too literally, it prevents some things that just come up in the course of administering the
Speaker 78
30:13
system. A classic example is when a member passes away and we reach out to the beneficiary, we need to be able to discuss specifics of that member's situation with that beneficiary, and we may not have a signed authorization.
So we should make clear in situations like that that we can disclose information in
that case. Members, do we have any questions on F3? Seeing none, without objection,
Speaker 81
30:42
that rule is reviewed, F4. All right, this is Section 10-329, starting on page 40. And this is from Act 587. This is the act that allows certain child care employees and child care facilities to become members of the retirement system.
And this is limited to child care facilities that accept state vouchers for child care.
Speaker 78
31:06
And so in the rule, we've outlined the process of how that will work, how they'll become approved as employers. We've tried to parallel as much as we can our other situations where we approve non-school employers.
Speaker 81
31:20
The one big difference is that the Act and this rule allows us to appoint one fiscal agent who can represent all of those different providers.
They'll be responsible for making that initial approval decision to approve that new employer, and
Speaker 78
31:35
then they'll be collecting the contributions and remitting those to us. And that just simplifies things for us administratively, so we're dealing with that one fiscal pastor agent. But as far as qualifications, it doesn't add
anything to what's in the Act. Mark, at the risk of opening a can of worms here, the child care vouchers that we're referring
to, are those ABC vouchers, or do they also apply to the ones that were federally funded that are being pulled
Speaker 79
32:10
back on? How does that work? It applies to any child care funding that is flowing through the State Department of Education. So if we're receiving
the dollars from the Fed for a grant, purpose, whatever it is, those education facilities still potentially qualify to participate in the APERS program under this. However, obviously once those federal funds, if they're not available, the grant is no longer renewed and that goes away, that program ends,
then they're going to have to find alternative sources of funds, but they still remain in the APERS, in the ATRS system. Yes, sir. As long as they have that
Speaker 78
32:48
agreement with the department, even if the funds aren't there, as long as they maintain that agreement with the department, they can continue to be eligible. Okay. Representative Andrews. Thank
Representative Wade Andrews
Unverified
33:00
you, Mr. Chair. What's the fiscal impact to this rule change? It
Speaker 81
33:04
should be neutral because the act provides that these individuals are coming on the same terms as everyone else.
They'll pay the same contribution rates and everything else. So we don't expect it to
Speaker 78
33:15
have any change. Well, let me say, if anything, the change will be positive because we have more members making more contributions, but no expense. Okay, makes
sense. Thank you. All right. Any other questions of the committee? Seeing none, without objection, F4 will be reviewed. Moving on to F5. All right, so the next
Speaker 78
33:36
one starts on page, the section starts on page 58.
Speaker 81
33:41
The actual change is on page 59. This is section 10-501. This is implementing Act 227. This act may change what used to be known as gap year service. This is where a classroom teacher, they leave the district for a year and then later come back. This allows them to buy that service back and add that to their credit with us. The issue we saw was under the old legislation, you had to miss at least a year.
And so if you had, for example, a teacher who was on maternity leave for a semester, they could not buy that back. So Act 227 revised that so we can issue credit as little as
Speaker 79
34:24
a quarter to a member who's willing to purchase that
back. And so this just implements the act. Any
Speaker 78
34:34
questions? Seeing none. Without objection, that rule is reviewed. And F6. And this starts on page 72, Section 10-512, and this is the second piece of that same act.
It does the same thing. any questions seeing none without objection that
Speaker 81
34:55
rule is reviewed and the next one starts on page 74 section 10-513 and all we're doing is correcting
Speaker 78
35:06
the misspelling in the title any questions without objection F7 is reviewed it takes us
Speaker 81
35:14
to f8 f8 begins on page the section because on page 100 the actual change is
on page 103 and this is implementing two acts act this first change on page 103 that is implementing act 222 and that just clarifies language around the deadline for a member to cancel an annuity option. Annuity option is where when they retire, they decide they want to receive a slightly smaller annuity so that a spouse or a dependent child can continue to receive benefits after their
death. And then if I may explain the other half of this same section, and that is on page 106. This is implementing Act 363, and that allows us when benefits are owed to a beneficiary, This allows us to make those payments to a special
Speaker 78
36:11
needs trust that has been set up for that beneficiary to protect
their Medicaid eligibility. Any questions on this one? Seeing none, without objection, that F8 is reviewed.
Speaker 81
36:29
starts on page 108. The actual change is on 109. This is section 10-616. And this is just, there was some, there was four words that were in there as a subsection heading. And at some point in this, all this transition
Speaker 78
36:46
around rules, it got pulled into the language of the rule. So we're just eliminating what
was a heading. Any questions on F9? Without objection, that rule is reviewed.
Speaker 81
36:59
F10. Next one starts on page 120. This is section 10-710. and this implements act 226 and what this does is this clarifies when a member may cancel their t-drop distribution election so when they they're in the t-drop program they accumulate retirement earnings while they continue to work and then once they finally stop working they have the option of either rolling that over to another qualified retirement account they can take a lump sum
distribution they can leave it with us in a cash balance account or they can use it to increase their monthly payment and so this just allows them to make a
change within a certain period time after they make that initial election any questions seeing none without objection that
Speaker 81
37:54
rule is reviewed item f11 all right and then this is on page 121 section 10-712 the change is actually
on 122 we're just correcting a topo it should say
Speaker 78
38:07
cash balance account and it says cash account balance so we're correcting that any questions without objection f11 is
Speaker 81
38:17
reviewed f12 the next one starts on page 127 this is section 10-804 and there's changes in two places on this one the first change on page 127 this is implementing act
224 there is a if you are a retired member and you marry there's a waiting period before your spouse can become eligible for survivor benefits you have to be married current law was at least two years this bill changes that to one year so we're reflecting that in the rule there on page 127 and then on page 128 we're just making explicit that before surviving spouse can receive benefits they have to provide us all the documentation that we ask for and the two
key things are bank information and tax forms we have
to have those before we can make payments any additional documentation required by the system is the way that's kind of broad is there any other those are specifically bank statements
Speaker 79
39:25
and tax records it's what for most members that's going to be their bank account information of where
Speaker 78
39:31
the deposit should be made and then also their tax forms where they may need to provide us their tax id
Speaker 81
39:36
number they may need to send us a w-9
form. But we also leave it open because there are situations where there may be some possible suggestion of fraud. And so we may want to ask for some additional documentation around that. So
should there be a list of what some of those other documentations are? So I wouldn't say that you would do this, but 10 years from now, I don't know who's going to be sitting in that chair, making this determination of what those documents might be. But could it be punitive to where, hey we don't want this survivor to to
get these benefits so we're going to make it impossible
Speaker 78
40:12
with this new documentation. I had that thought as well and we we talked through that the the concern though is that when you're talking about in cases where you may have a suspicion of fraud that can that's a very open-ended list of things you might want to ask for if you're trying to determine if there is something abusive or something else going on in that situation And so we thought because of that uncertainty, we thought it better to leave it open-ended. Any other questions?
Speaker 90
40:44
Seeing none. Representative Burks. Thank you. I actually think you're off by one exhibit. This is Exhibit 11. Good Staff is gonna speak
Speaker 91
41:05
that you're correct. He has been going in the proper order of what we've been talking about On the agenda. It has the Roman numerals or the numerals. We are on
Speaker 11
41:16
12 it is exhibit 11, but for the sake of
the agenda we are in the right order Okay, thank you All right, any any other
questions on this particular item without objection this rule is reviewed item
Speaker 81
41:45
F 13 survivors dependent children this is starts on page 131 the actual changes start on 132 section 10-807 this
is implementing Act 225 and what that does is it allows qualifying child survivors to receive benefits through age 22 the old law was they had to meet certain specific requirements about being in school and that was repealed by the legislation so we're making the changes here and then as you'll see in these next couple of rules they're making other
Speaker 78
42:14
changes to implement that act as well right
any questions on this rule without objection that one will be
Speaker 81
42:26
reviewed item F 14 10 8 0 8 and so this is again page 132 we're repealing the language that was repealed by the Act
any questions without objection that rule is reviewed item F 15 10 8 0 9 and this
Speaker 81
42:49
is on the following page on 133 again repealing language that is no longer needed because of act 225 any questions seeing none
Speaker 79
43:00
without objection that rule is reviewed item
f16 10 8 11 all right and this
Speaker 81
43:09
begins on page 134 uh 10-8 11 this also relates to act 225 this is the other part of that act which is It allows children of disability retirees to receive children's survivor benefits if the
Speaker 78
43:23
member passes away. And so we are making that explicit in the rule. Any questions?
Seeing none without objection, that rule is reviewed. Item F-17, 10-826. And this one starts, the
Speaker 78
43:38
section starts on page 145. The changes are on the following page
Speaker 81
43:44
on 146. This relates to qualified domestic relations orders, or as we call them, quads. These are when you have a member who is married and they divorce. Very often the court will enter an order dividing assets between those two individuals.
And so in some cases, we have a member who has an ex-spouse. We will have to pay a portion of that member's benefits to the ex-spouse based on the court order. This language here, we're just making explicit that we do not incur any obligation to pay out until
Speaker 78
44:17
we've actually received a court order that meets the requirements. We shall make sure that there's no indication where we've already paid out to the member and someone wants to go retroactive even though we did not have the court order. Any questions on this rule?
Without objection, that rule is considered reviewed. And then F-18 is just a summary, so I think you may be done. Representative McCullough, you are recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Is it okay if I go,
Representative Tippi McCullough
Unverified
44:47
I just wanted to ask a couple of questions about a rule that was up above, kind of got away from me. Okay, sure. Is that okay? Yeah. Thank you. So I want to go back up to, I believe it's Exhibit F1, but F2 may be on the agenda.
So can you remind me, was that part of the eradication of all language kind of in relation to DEI? It
Speaker 81
45:13
was, there was a bill, I think it was run by Representative Brown. It eliminated minority board positions in about 20 different boards, including ours.
Representative Tippi McCullough
Unverified
45:23
Okay, thank you. And if I can follow up just on that, do you know how long this rule had been in place for that minority position before it was, do you know when it was first put on?
Speaker 87
45:36
I am not certain about that. It wasn't statute, but I don't know offhand when that statute was originally passed. is there any way to find
that out for you great thank you thank you mr chair welcome all right any other questions before i let the witness go seeing none thank you mr white and seeing no other business we are adjourned
Agenda
A. Call to Order
B. Consideration to Approve June 4, 2024, Meeting Minutes [Exhibit B]
C. Consideration of a Motion to Authorize Chairs to Approve Special Expenses Incurred by the Committee
D. Overview of the Summary of Actuarial Valuation Data and Results as of December 31, 2024, Arkansas Local Fire and Police Pension and Relief Funds [Exhibit D] - Jody Carreiro, Actuary, Osborn, Carreiro & Associates, Incorporated
E. Review of Rules from Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System (APERS), and Arkansas Judicial Retirement System (AJRS) [Exhibits E1–E2] - Amy Fecher, Executive Director, APERS
G. Other Business
H. Adjournment
Documents
Speakers
Speaker 3
Speaker 6
Speaker 9
Speaker 1
Speaker 2
Speaker 15
Speaker 17
Speaker 27
Speaker 28
Senator Jim Dotson Chair
Unverified
Speaker 33
Representative Wade Andrews
Unverified
Speaker 34
Speaker 51
Speaker 59
Speaker 40
Representative Steven Walker
Unverified
Speaker 65
Speaker 54
Speaker 78
Speaker 79
Speaker 81
Speaker 90
Speaker 91
Speaker 11
Representative Tippi McCullough
Unverified
Speaker 87