Good afternoon, everyone.

The informal meeting of the Richmond City Council will now come to order.

Madam Clerk, if you would provide us with the uh chamber emergency evacuation announcement, please.

Upon activation of the emergency alarm signal, all persons should immediately exit the building.

Please use the excess to the left or right front of the council chamber or the east or west stairwell outside the rear doors of the chamber.

Do not use elevators or escalators.

After exiting the building, security would direct everyone down 9th Street to the assembly area inside the former public safety build building parking lot.

Able persons should assist visually and hearing impaired visitors with exiting the building.

And Madam President, for the record, all members are in attendance this evening, with the exception of counselors Lynch and Alberbacher.

You do have a core.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Let's proceed with the docket review.

Starting with the consent agenda, item number one, ordinance 2025-258.

Planning commission recommended approval with an amendment.

And that paper is scheduled to be amended later this evening and continue to the March 23rd council meeting.

Item two, ordinance 2025-270.

This paper was amended at the February 23rd council meeting.

It's currently being retained on this evening's consent agenda.

Item three, ordinance 2025-276.

Item 4, ordinance 2025-287, public safety standing committee recommended approval.

Item five, ordinance 2026 003.

This paper is to be continued to the March 23rd council meeting per the patrons request.

Item 6, ordinance 2026 019.

This paper was amended at the February 23rd council meeting.

It will be retained on this evening's consent agenda.

Item 7, ordinance 2026 042, planning commission recommended approval with an amendment.

And this paper is scheduled to be amended later this evening and continue to the March 23rd council meeting.

Items eight and nine, ordinance 2026 043 and 2026 044 Planning Commission recommended approval.

Items 10 through 14, ordinance 2026 046, 047, 048, 049, and 050.

Committee referral was waived on all five items.

All five items are being retained on this evening's consent agenda.

Madam Clerk, if you could hold for a moment, I have a member who has a question, Councilman Breton.

Yeah, I have a question about number 12.

I could ask it now or I can wait till the end of the list.

I would prefer that you ask it now.

Okay.

Um I see that item 12 was referred straight to council without going to a subcommittee, but I was wondering, I guess if we could hear more about what that item is and whether or not it, you know, would be best sent to a subcommittee.

Thank you.

Mr.

Prelke, how are you?

I'm good.

Good afternoon, Council Chris Frelke, Director of Parks Recreation and Community Facilities.

We've been working with Under Crown Kitchen this, they had a five-year lease with us, so this is a renewal of their five-year lease because five years is the longest term that we can do, but they've been a really good partner with us.

They've been doing a lot of programming within the community, and some of the things we added in this is some more metrics so that we can start getting some more details on the numbers they're serving by zip code in different areas based on the program.

So we're excited to continue this partnership and to continue uh to work with them.

Uh I guess if if somebody wanted it to get a full hearing with public comment at a subcommittee meeting, would that impose any problem on the schedule of the relationship?

Technically, the the lease is set to expire.

We will part of our challenge was we had the ice and the snow, and so we lost a council meeting.

And so it's set to expire, I believe, on the 12th of March.

So we're also trying to get this in so we can get them and their lease in place.

Okay, and so there's a renewal of uh of a long-standing very positive relationship uh with some added urgency on getting it passed.

Yes, sir.

All right.

Well, then I guess um then it sounds like it's fine to stay on the agenda tonight.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Brooke.

Madam Clerk.

Moving on to the regular agenda, item number 15, ordinance 2025-231.

Um, this paper is to be continued to the April 13th council meeting per request.

And lastly, item number 16, ordinance 2026 017, Finance and Economic Development Standing Committee recommended approval.

And this item is being retained on this evening's regular agenda.

And Madam President, those are all the items on this evening's docket.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

With that, we will proceed to the presentation.

Um, this afternoon.

Uh Mr.

Griffin and Ms.

Johnson have joined us to provide uh Richmond Retirement System annual update.

Welcome, Mr.

Griffin and Ms.

Johnson.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

I'm Leo Griffin, executive director of the Richmond Retirement System.

To my right is Kia Johnson, senior deputy director of RRS.

On MS Teams, uh, if you have expanded questions, we have a couple of the actuaries from Sage Route Consulting available online, and we also have an investment consultant, senior investment consultant from Callan, our independent investment consultant.

Uh, and then behind me is Ms.

Daisy Weaver.

She's the former chair of the board.

Many of you know her.

She's currently an RRS board member and also served uh a decade or two ago on the board.

So she has a lot of experience and dedication to RRS.

Today's agenda will talk about uh investment performance.

We'll give you an actual summary, talk a little bit about the membership composition of the Richmond Retirement System, funded status, and projected funded status, and then we'll finish up with projected employer contributions.

Starting off with investment returns, these numbers are all net of fees at June 30th at 25.

Our one year number is 10 and a half percent.

That exceeded the assumed rate of return of seven.

The five-year number on an annualized basis is 8.2%, again, strong.

Uh as many of you know, the markets have been uh robust over the last um few years, and the portfolio outperformed its benchmark by 20 basis points, so that's under 1% last fiscal year.

Uh more importantly, we restructured the portfolio in 2020.

Um, we really did a complete restructure of the portfolio, also changed the asset allocation.

And since that time, which is approximately five years, the port uh portfolio investment portfolio has outperformed its custom benchmark by 80 basis points, point eight zero percent annualized over uh four and three quarter years.

Moving on to the actual summary, the defined benefit plan RRS, as you know, is closed to new employees with new employees going to VRS.

The funded status is 84.9 percent as of June 30th to 25.

That's measured once a year in a document called the valuation by the actuary, and that increased from 80.9 percent in fiscal year 2024 to the current funded status of 84.9 percent, and it'll be measured again at June 30th of 26.

Strong investment performance in fiscal year 2025 is the primary reason for the increase in the funded status from 24 to 25, and the net pension liability is 157 million.

Um the net pension liability in a nutshell.

If if the city was to write a check for 157 million, the plan would be 100% funded.

So that's a good way to think about what what the net pension liability is.

It's the difference between the actual liability and the market value of the investments.

Uh that was a 193 million at June 30th to 24.

Again, strong investment performance reduced uh the net pension liability, which is a good thing.

I'm gonna turn part of the presentation over to Kia.

Good afternoon.

Kia Johnson, senior deputy director of the Richmond Retirement System.

Um, up here it shows the membership composition at 630, 2025.

We have 4,051 retirees at this time, active defined benefit plan members, 1,055.

And then the vessel terms, those are people who left city service, and then they can come back and get their retirement at a later date once they're eligible.

That's about 1700.

This next slide just shows what the funded status is or has been over the last five years.

Right now we're at 84.9%.

That's as of June 30, 2025, up from the 80.9 in 2024.

This slide shows the projected funded status over the next 10 years.

So you see that this um it's just basically over the next 10 years, you got almost at 100% in 2034.

Back to Mr.

Griffin.

Our last slide deals with projected employer contributions and uh the projections, the funded status, the employer contributions, those are produced independently by our actuary.

So this isn't RRS staff putting this graph together.

It's not RRS staff putting the projected funded status together.

That's the actuaries.

So with that, I'd like to open it up to any questions that you have.

Thank you, Mr.

Griffin and Ms.

Johnson members.

Are there any questions at this time?

Councilmember Trammell.

Yes.

Thank you, Madam President.

Umbers do you have?

Because I'll look through here.

I know this is given to us at the last minute.

Um, how many board members do you have?

There's seven, there's seven maximum and seven seated sworn-in board members.

And the only one really here is Daisy Weaver.

You don't have the rest in her.

I'm sorry, I didn't have you don't have your board members here, correct?

Except no, if we had three or more, then um we would need to post a public notice.

So Miss Weaver's here, our board chair uh tried to make it but had a family uh medical incident.

So I believe we have one board member here.

And when was the last time that our retirees got a raise?

Kia.

Supplementary colour, supplementary colour.

Uh if you're saying like the ad hoc cola to January 1st, 2020.

You said what now?

An ad hoc cola, the a colour to increase the pension.

Is that what you're saying?

I'm talking about like from city council, the mayor, um, wasn't that during Governor Wilder's term when he was here?

I think that's the last time that they got a raise, the retirees did.

It was under Governor Wilder when he was the governor, the mayor here.

We probably had to be 200 maybe six.

You don't know.

We gave there was a one percent ad hoc in January 1 of 2020.

Well, I'd like to have that information because I will call him myself and ask him to tonight.

I'll call him and ask him.

Sure.

Okay.

Um, I have a question.

Um, if you're not recommending a colour for retirees in the FY27 budget with the funded status of the Richmond retirement system at 85%, at what level of funding status would you recommend a colour?

Yeah, that's a difficult question, and I'll probably ask the actuaries to jump in.

The funded status, uh, the actuarial funded status today um is 84.9.

And when the actuaries presented to the board last September, uh, their recommendation was to not grant an ad hoc cola unless it was pre-funded.

So there's sort of two parts to that, meaning if you prefund an ad hoc cola, it's six point six million dollars up front for every one percent of colour.

So excuse me, so at three percent, just doing the math ad hoc would cost about 20 million up front.

Um I would just ask the actuaries to jump in there about any recommendations that they have on the ad hocola.

We have Dan Homan and William Bill Reed on MS Teams.

Yeah, sorry.

Looks like we now can do that.

I would think I can speak.

I'm sorry.

You're trying to have your person.

Are they on the did we go down?

They are on the meeting.

I am on, I just wasn't.

If you could tell the mic on Mr.

Reed or Mr.

Emmett, Mr.

Harmony, you can actually I have it on.

Can you hear me?

Can you hear me?

I'm talking.

That has nothing to do with it.

They can speak.

I I'm I'm trying to speak.

Can you hear me at all?

Hello.

Ms.

Marx, what's the challenge?

Can you hear me?

I'm not sure, but the actual they get they're actually on teens.

They have been set up as presenters.

They just need to, their mics are on.

Not sure whether or not they are actually speaking in their mic.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Yes.

Can you hear Dan?

Can you hear me?

You can.

Yes, we can.

Okay, we've been talking.

Um, this is Dan Homo with Sage View.

Yeah, the issue with the Cola is always a very touchy subject.

Because if you don't pre-fund it, all you're going to do is push that liability into the future, which increases the contribution rates.

And it's a very delicate line.

What is the correct percentage?

Uh, to be honest with you, I've seen it anywhere from 80%, they give one up to 100%.

So there's really no correct answer.

It's really what does this what does the city want to afford in terms of giving a cola?

Because the issue is that that's a that's a permanent increase for the lifetime of the individuals.

So that's one of the things we talk about.

If we pre-fund the cola, if we want to give a three percent cola, it's a 20 million dollar one-time funding cost.

So that's why it's it's very it's there's not a right answer to when is the right time or what is the correct funded percentage to issue a cola?

Does that make sense?

Let me okay.

You're asking me a question.

Let me just answer this for you.

It is a touchy subject when I have retirees calling me every year, screaming and crying that they can't make it because medical has gone up, um, taxes have gone up, and a lot of them live in my district in this city, and they are still paying and getting nothing.

That is a touchy subject to me.

I don't know about you.

But I worked a corporate, yes, but I work for corporate American dollars.

Excuse me.

Excuse me.

Yes.

I think I think there needs to be more discussion with this because to me, I know I have been asking for years and years and years for our retirees to get a raise, a cola, to get a cola.

And every year we're told we can't do it.

Evidently, I don't know if it's you or your board members or whatever, but it looks like you're not looking after our retirees.

That's the way that I see it.

And you're the one that's in charge.

And I can't believe I don't have a list of the people that's on your board.

You have a police officer, firefighter.

Is that true?

How come they're not and Miss Weaver and you and you?

How come you all are not fighting harder when we're looking at 85%?

So let me ask you, what do you think is going to take?

What do you got to have a hundred percent before you will recommend for our retirees to be taken care of with the colour RRS's board, its executive director does care about the retirees?

The ultimate decision granting an ad hoc cola lies with nine city council members.

The perhaps touchy was not the right word that Dan used.

The issue becomes you could grant an ad hoc tonight at 3% and not prefund it, but you will lower the funded status.

So are you willing to lower the funded status by putting it on the mortgage, so to speak?

RRS's responsibility is to make sure that there are assets there to pay for the billion dollar liability in the future.

VRS pre-funded it.

So someone comes in, they work 30 years.

It's being paid in the whole time.

RRS, it's a different animal.

Decision was made many years ago that it would be ad hoc.

So it's a decision up to council.

Thank you, Mr.

Gerth.

And council member Robertson.

I'll come back because I had a couple more questions, but I'll come back.

Go ahead, Ellen.

Thank you for the presentation.

I I um want to better understand slide number eight.

Um help me understand why there is a decrease in the scale.

So that I can better appreciate what you share, Nea with me.

Yes, good question.

So we're just bringing slide eight back up on the slide.

Um I will start this answer, and then if the actuaries need to jump in.

What you see between 2032 and 2033.

Uh in 2032, there's a projected employer contribution of roughly 30 million.

Your question is, why does it drop in 33?

And if if I line that up on the graph, it drops to about a little under 15 million.

When approximately 15 plus years ago, before Key and I got here, and and sometime back around 2006, the board the plan was partially closed.

So when the plan was partially closed, it remained open for uh police and fire.

It was closed for general employees.

The board um changed the amortization on the legacy liability.

They they took the actual liability, rolled it into a number, and amortized it over 20 years.

We refer to that as a legacy liability that the actuaries are calculating.

And so right now the projections are that the end of the term on the amortization of the legacy liability would occur circa 2033.

When that legacy liability is paid off, the employer would be required or it'd be recommended, determined that they put in less.

And that's a long answer.

Let me see if I've confused you or helped you with that.

Actual science would have been the two-word short answer, Ms.

Robinson.

It has to do with that legacy liability and trying to get that legacy liability off the books.

Okay, so may I have one additional question, Madam Chair?

Um we made some significant changes as it relates to our retirement and going with the benefits from the state, which is something that we've been working on for quite some time.

And the changes that we are seeing now in the funding status, is that directly related to that change as well as the change that we made as it relates to the DB plan?

Sure.

Could you take us back to the projected funded status?

I or take us back to the actual funded status.

One more, I think if I understand Ms.

Robinson's question.

So does it does your question relate to the slide?

Yeah.

So if we look at 23 to 24, there's two reasons why the big jump.

First of all, when you look at the slide, you see that over five years the funded status went up 13%.

That's a big jump.

The biggest jump happens between 23 and 24, and the biggest reason for that is that the city issued pension obligation bonds, and then uh the net proceeds that went to RRS in June of 24 were 120 million, a cash infusion, and that drove the funded status up primarily.

We also had a good investment return that year.

We beat uh the 7%, I think it was 9.9.

That also helped us get to 80.9.

But the big kicker, so to speak, was were those pension obligation bonds.

The pension obligation bonds happen to occur at the same time as as VRS, but really I see those as being separate and distinct.

Um let me stop and see if I've answered your question or not.

That's the biggest change.

You also have less people coming into the plan because you um new employees go to VRS.

Okay.

Thank you.

Councilman Breton.

So I I want to understand the um the important contribution versus the assets that the plan has.

So I can imagine if we were 100% funded, that would mean that the assets of the plan would fully pay the liabilities of the plan.

Is that what 100% funded means?

Correct.

So the liability, I think is around a billion dollars.

And the the assets, I don't have the June 30th assets in front of me, but the December 31st assets are around 930 million.

Um the June 30th assets are probably 900 million.

The difference is that in the pension liability.

If the assets equaled the liabilities, the liability, we would be 100% funded.

I believe you would still need to make an employer contribution.

That's I would have to have the actuary answer that part, but it would be small or uh okay.

As you can see, because in 34, 35, 36, you're almost 100% funded.

You're very high 90s on another slide.

And at that point, there's still money needing to go in, fuel so to speak, but a lot less fuel when you get to 100% funded.

And so it seems then that whatever that gap is between the the size liability size of the assets is directly related to the amount that we just have to find in our operating budget just to subsidize the plan year to year, um, roughly.

Well, look at it this way.

If you put in roughly 39 million dollars in fiscal year 27, and the city has always contributed what's called the ADC, the actual determined contribution, always.

If you put that in and then the following year, 37, 38, and then down to 2032, you're putting in roughly 30 million.

If you do that and we hit 7%, okay, then you'll get to 100% funded or near 100% within a decade.

If we don't hit 7%, that changes things.

If you don't put in the ADC, which again, you've always done that, that would change things.

I think the biggest outlier tends to be the 7% assumed rate of return.

We've done a lot of work on that.

We believe that over the long term, we can hit seven, but we won't hit seven every year.

We could be more or we could be less.

Because but if we don't pre-fund it, would I expect to see the ADC go up to make up for that difference of an unfunded COLA?

Um, I'm gonna give a short answer of yes to that.

And if I'm wrong, the actuaries can jump in, and if I'm not wrong, they can stay muted.

Because if you gave a 1% cola and if you deposited 6.6 million into RRS, you still have your liability of a billion.

And what happens is that liability goes up, I think, by 6.6.

The assets go up by 6.6, and you have not affected the funded status with just we're talking about one cola.

A series of cola is a different conversation.

One colo would keep the funded status the same if you pre-funded it.

Now, how about the the bonds that we put in?

Uh, do the assets um do the assets of the plan pay those bonds, or does our general fund pay those bonds?

Um, I'm gonna have to defer to finance, but I'm going to say the assets of the fund do not pay the bondholders.

I don't know if it's all general fund.

Um, that's probably a question for Michael if he's here.

Um, but it's those monies do not come out.

It was a substitution of debt.

Okay.

So we weren't RS wasn't involved with this, but it was putting money into pension obligation bonds, and there's risk there, was debt to the bondholders, but it brought the funded status up.

And I don't know the interest rate on those bonds, but I assume that the interest rate on the bonds is less than our assumed rate of return.

So a little arbitrage play there by the city to bring the funded status up.

Am I answering your question?

But we don't the RRS doesn't make the bond payments.

I have no knowledge of what the interest rate is or the bond payments.

We took the money, we invested it.

And since that time, we've earned seven standing here today.

Next year, it may not be seven.

Long term, we hope it will be seven.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Um, Vice President Jordan.

Thank you, Madam President.

Um appreciate the report.

Um, I had two questions.

The first would be, and I appreciate our staff who worked on um digging into the documents you provided.

Um is it correct that for state local pension plans, the average year-in funded status is more like 77.7%?

It's a great question.

The answer is it depends.

So I have managed pension plans for 20 years, 13 here, and I'm always searching for the right bogey benchmark.

Recently, um SP Global has refined their benchmark, and it's always a year late.

So the SP Global, um, which is one of the rating agencies, has a median funded status for municipalities.

So I'm gonna come back to your question on states at June 30th or 24, because they're always lagging by over a year.

The new one will be out in September of 4% higher than ours.

So in other words, ours was 80.9 at June 30th to 24.

They're showing the median municipal funded status, uh approximately 4% higher.

So I would say we're still a little under median today.

State plans, um, I don't dispute what you said, but I it's all about timing.

Some of the plans are June 30th, some of the plans are 1231.

Um, I'd have to you'd have to ask yourself the question, who is in that population or that sample of state plans to come up with the high 70s?

I would think my gut feeling would be it would be in the low 80s, but I don't dispute the number because there's three or four different studies out there that show what the median funded status is.

Did I did I help to answer that?

Uh yeah.

So the the point of the question was is there a point where you're emphasizing being funded at a higher level versus being able to do a cola and accept a lower level and still be in like a safe uh range?

I think we're near median today.

And as long as you're funding the ADC with the actuary the 39 million for next year and then tapering down on that slide, and as long as we hit seven percent, we're gonna go up to 100% near 100%.

If we don't hit that 7%, that'll change things.

So why would you not build in a cola and accept a 90% or 85%?

That is a question for the actuary as to why a call is not built in, because that was an actual decision.

So I need to deflect that question to sage you on MS teams if that's okay.

So it's their decision not to build a col in the projections.

That's an actuarial assumption.

Okay, so I'll let them answer my second question was can you have targeted colas?

Um, I imagine that their range of employee um you know levels, just as there are today.

Can you target it to folks who would move more acutely needed and benefit?

So it's been so long since there's the last cola was again 2020, it was a 1%.

I don't think that was targeted.

I as I look back at some of the colas from decades ago, they were probably targeted to near inflation.

But for those of us who live through the 80s, I don't believe the plan was giving colas of 14 to 18 percent 40 years ago.

A lot of plans when they do grant out of Hakoa, they do grant colas on a regular basis, have an up to CPI or an up to CPI with a maximum of three.

So I'm not an expert on VRS, but I think that that's the way they may do it.

Meaning, I don't think that was my question.

Okay, I apologize.

You were asking about a target cola?

Targeted.

So is there a scenario where you know, not everyone might not need the colo as acutely?

You know, maybe their spouse has a larger pension, etc.

Is there a way to target it for folks who would get the most benefit from that cola?

I think the answers yes.

I think the I don't see why not.

Meaning you say somebody has a hundred thousand dollar pension versus somebody that has a five thousand dollar pension a year, and you want to draw a threshold.

I believe we could do that.

I apologize if I misunderstood your question before.

Yeah, and I'm not suggesting that's the answer.

I'm just trying to think of different options.

Um I'd like to circle back to my question about why not accept a lower funded status and provide a colour.

Yeah, but it's two part.

The question on accepting a lower funded status, I would have to deflect that to the finance department because the answer there might be the rating agencies, which I'm not involved with.

Um if you targeted a cola at a certain threshold, it wouldn't be 6.6 million, it would be something less per 1% if you carved people out and following your train of thought.

I'm sorry, are your colleagues that are on teams able to answer the first question?

Sure.

Dan, Bill, first question.

Sorry, I'm having trouble.

Can everyone hear me okay?

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Yes.

Okay.

Um so City of Richmond has never had an automatic cola in the city code.

Um way back in the day, um, you would grant ad hoc colas every single year, and you would add that liability um into the plan and it would flow through the ADC.

And that's part of the reason why the plan got underfunded in the first place.

As Dan mentioned earlier, there really is no right answer for what funded status is appropriate for when you offer a POLA.

Um, that's a discussion that we need to have.

But um Bill Dowd, who who was the actuary for the plan for a long time, um, and a prior board decided to set that potential funded status at 85%.

And whether that's appropriate or not, you know, we need to have a discussion about that.

For this year, the funded status technically was not 85%, it was 84.9, and we decided um to not recommend a cola because we want to get this plan adequately funded, and any cola that is not prepaid is going to reduce the funded level of the plan.

So if you grant a cola and you don't prepay it, as was mentioned before, the ADC is going to go up and the funded status is going to go down.

So it's going to make all these projection graphs look a little worse.

Um next year, depending on where the funded stat is, we might have a different opinion on that, but we need to have a conversation about that.

Thank you.

I do have a question.

I'd like to know by how much would the city's ADC need to increase each year to fund a 1% cola.

Well, we we need to do that calculation.

I don't have that number uh right in front of me.

Um I can I can get that to you at a later date, but I don't have that number to share on this call.

I do know that the in order to pre-fund a one percent cola has been mentioned seven times several times is about six million dollars.

Um I'm sorry, didn't hear what was that amount?

A one percent cola um to pre-fund it is six million dollars.

So if you grant a one percent cola and put in six million dollars, then none of these graphs change.

But if you grant a one percent cola and don't put in the six million dollars, then again the ADC will go up and the funded status will go down in these graphs, and that is multiplicative.

So uh, you know, a two percent cola would be 12 or you know, 14 million dollars, and a three percent cola is closer to 20 million dollars.

So did you indicate that you would need to get back with us with specifics relative to the actual aid increase uh determine how much the ABC would go up if you granted a cola yes, yes.

I would need to get back to you with that number.

I would like to be in receipt of that information, please, as soon as possible.

Okay, we I believe we would so in that case it's like paying over time, like a second mortgage.

Okay.

Okay, Mr.

Griffin, Ms.

Johnson, thank you.

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't see council member Hamilton I had another question.

Um do you know how often the city retires get permanent cost of living raises compared to Him Rico and Chesterfield and other state retirees?

The VRS plan, those municipality, those entities you named, I believe are in VRS.

I'm 99% sure.

And VRS issues a cola every year, it's a different type of cola.

It was pre-funded and built in throughout the lifetime of the employees working.

But the short answer is VRS is giving a cola every year up to a maximum.

Okay, I know that um thank you.

Okay, because I know years ago, our employees were told that the Richmond, I remember this.

I remember them standing right here saying this, the Richmond um retirement system would be equal or better than the Virginia um retirement system for the first few years that was true.

But for at least the past 20 years, this has not been true because of inflation.

And that's what the that's what my seniors are telling me.

And I could name probably oh my god, at least 20 of them right off now that have retired from this city and finance and recreation and parks and all of that that are begging every year crying to me because this has gone up.

Um they have only one income coming in, and it looks like we are not taking care of them that are still in their homes, paying these high taxes, utilities and everything else, but they have they can't go nowhere.

But now they ask for give us, you know, give us something.

Act like we matter.

Did we matter that we gave over 20 years of our life to the city, 25, 30 years?

But y'all think that we we don't matter because we we no longer there.

I agree with what you're saying.

I think the answer comes down to competing resources.

Um, whether or not you pre-fund or whether or not you put it on the liability and drop the funded status, that's the fundamental question.

Okay.

You drop the funded status too far, and you could have this is outside my wheelhouse, an issue with the bond rating agencies.

Could I go back to that first question that I asked you, what's it going to take if we're up to 85%?

Well, us to consider them.

85%, I think is a mythological number.

Um, all according to the Academy of Actuaries, the goal for all pension plans should be 100% funded.

85%, in my opinion, has no bearing.

Um, but the the one answer would be if we're at 84.9 at last fiscal year and we earn something above seven percent this fiscal year, with still a few months left in very volatile markets.

Under that scenario, I would expect the funded status to be above 85 percent.

If the markets fall apart in the next three and a half months, then we could be under seven percent.

If the markets continue to roll, we could be over seven percent over seven.

So what's it gonna take to get to 85?

A healthy market between now and June 30th.

Thank you, Mr.

Griffin.

You will get the information back to us in terms of what uh additional costs would be associated with at least minimally a 1%.

I mean, but very substantively.

Yes, we will get back to you on that.

Okay, and could you just tell me last time there was a bonus given?

Yeah, so the bonus we also refer to as a supplement, um, three fiscal years in a row.

So the last one, key August of 24 was the last bonus given to retirees, which is the fiscal year ended 25, but early in that fiscal year.

Okay.

So the bonus was and there were three in a row.

Three bonuses.

Yeah, meaning it was a five percent, a one percent, and then a three hundred, a flat three hundred dollars to everyone.

Really nothing but little crumbs for them.

So um depending on what state they live in, you're gonna have a and depending on what their income bracket is.

If you give a three hundred dollar cola, that's gross, and then there'll be some taxes taken out of that.

I don't have that amount.

It would vary a little bit for every person.

Maybe 200, I'm just gonna guess.

Richmond, I live in Richmond, Virginia in 8th district, and a lot of my a lot of the retirees still live in the city of Richmond and 8th district, probably all over.

I know some of them live in the 9th, too.

So I would like to have that information.

And I think that was an insult for our retirees.

Like you said, depends on where they live.

No, this is Richmond.

I want to know what they got.

When you just said a 1% and what a 3% or whatever, that's not a whole lot of money.

When you look at how much the you look at how much inflammation inflation has gone up.

Are you thinking about that?

Oh, yeah, but do you hear?

Do you hear the cries?

Maybe if I had your phone number, I could give them your phone number so they could call you.

They call us all the time.

But the well Ms.

Trammel, just let me answer that, please.

The ad hoc, the supplements, the bonuses, those weren't a recommendation or decision for much from retirement system.

It was a decision by city council.

So if $300 gross was too much or two and a quarter NAT, that decision fell to council, not to Richmond Retirement System.

We implemented it.

We were not part of the decision.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Robertson.

Yes, thank you.

Just a follow up.

The question that was asked about the bonding.

And you said we need to check with finance to get that information, Madam Chair.

I just wanted to follow up to get that information as it relates to the cost of the bonding, whatever, interest we're bringing, those kinds of things.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Griffin, Ms.

Johnson, thank you for the presentation.

And we will make sure you get the uh questions that have been asked and the information as soon as you're able to would be appreciated.

Thank you so much.

Thank you for having us.

With that, members, the agenda for the informal uh city council session is completed.

This meeting stands adjourned.