SPECIAL GENERAL EMPLOYEE PENSION MINUTES

SPECIAL GENERAL EMPLOYEE PENSION PLAN BOARD A Special Meeting of the General Employee Pension Plan Board was held on April 19, 2024, at 3:05 p.m. with Mr. Gedney, Chair of the General Employee Pension Plan Committee, presiding. The members present were Mr. Anderson, Dr. Pillsbury, Mr. Welch, Ms. Kober, Ms. Marney, Ms. Poole, Mr. Rodriguez, and Mr. Hugg. Mr. Hugg left at 3:09 p.m. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Mr. Welch moved for an amendment of the agenda to include public comment, seconded by Ms. Kober, and unanimously carried. Mr. Welch moved to make a motion to include the next meeting date on the agenda for future meetings, seconded by Ms. Kober, and unanimously carried. Ms. Rivera, Assistant City Clerk stated that the next meeting is May 16th at 9:00 a.m. REVIEW OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2024-07 – AMENDING CHAPTER 80 – PERSONNEL, ARTICLE IV – PENSION PLANS AND RETIREMENT BENEFITS, DIVISION 3 – GENERAL EMPLOYEE PENSION PLAN Mr. Gedney opened the floor for discussion regarding Proposed Ordinance #2024-07 – Amending Chapter 80 – Personnel, Article IV – Pension Plans and Retirement Benefits, Division 3 – General Employee Pension Plan. Ms. Kober stated that the City of Dover’s website shows the agenda for the regular City Council meeting on Monday, April 22nd, and it has misinformation on page five (5), number 19 Proposed Ordinance #2024-07. At the April 9th meeting, the Legislative, Finance, and Administrative Committee reviewed Proposed Ordinance #2024-07. The ordinance only included amendments proposed independently by the ordinance sponsors rather than the provision recommended for adoption by the Pension Board. Since Proposed Ordinance #2024-07 as recommended by the General Employee Pension Board was not provided, the Legislative, Finance, and Administrative Committee remanded the ordinance back to the Pension Board for consideration of the sponsor's proposed amendment. The amendments recommended for adoption by the Legislative, Finance, and Administrative Committee on April 9th were scheduled for First Reading at the City Council meeting on April 22nd. Those committee amendments have been designated as a substitute for Ordinance #2024-07, effectively replacing the Pension Board’s amendment. She requested that the Legislative, Finance, and Administrative Committee and amendments receive a new ordinance number or at the very least be designated as a committee amendment rather than a substitute as they are now on a different track for adoption. Proposed Ordinance #2024-07 has been scheduled for reconsideration by the Legislative, Finance, and Administrative Committee at the meeting on April 23rd. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Ms. McDowell suggested a new ordinance number, renumber the two (2) sections, and put the 2% annual cost of living adjustment (COLA) in there and that would become a separate ordinance amendment. Responding to Ms. Kober, Ms. Poole explained that when this happens, the person should submit a to them with the effective date. Then, once they receive the letter officially stating that they are retiring, then the city will work with Milliman to run the numbers. The city will then pull the person’s last three (3) years of statements.

SPECIAL GENERAL EMPLOYEE PENSION PLAN BOARD MEETING ON APRIL 19, 2024 PAGE 2 Responding to Ms. Kober, Ms. Poole stated that normal retirement is achieved by meeting the 80 rule, which typically means that you have been in the city for a certain period of time. Early retirement is when the employee has 10 years of service. Responding to Ms. Kober, Ms. Poole stated that the information would be from both systems. She further stated that ADP now resides in a system called Resnet and that they are holding all the data in that system. Depending on the timing, some of the information is in Tyler, so they would work with both systems to pull out the relevant information. Responding to Ms. Kober, Ms. Poole stated that they would have to use all three (3) separate systems. Ms. Marney stated that the data for HTE Payroll was supposed to be transferred over to ADP so that they could have a better tracking system. Responding to Ms. Kober, Ms. Poole stated that once the financial records are pulled, they will be sent over to Milliman. She noted that the turnaround is typically about a week to a week and a half to get the retirement information and what the payment will be. A packet will be put together to include all the details and meet with the retiree or student to go over the documents. Section 80-505 pertains to early retirement, requiring individuals to reach the age of 55 years old. If they retire within 10 years of reaching this age, the process is the same, but there is a penalty at a reduced rate. Ms. Kober stated that they used to have retirement applications come to the board but is not sure why that was stopped. Mr. Pete Greg, who retired in 2017, stated that once the disability is determined by qualified medical professionals and reported to Human Resources, then it is a done deal. This does not even need to go to the Pension Board. Responding to Mr. Greg, Ms. Marney stated that the pension board should not be involved in determining disability. Responding to Mr. Greg, Ms. Kober stated that nobody disagrees, but before anything is done, they need a legal opinion. Mr. Robert Tarburton, a retiree, stated that he was injured in 2004, ended up having back surgery and then being put on leave. He explained that the supervisor came to his house and informed him that he had to officially retire to get his 27 years of service. The city made him take two (2) unpaid days off to reach his 27 years of service. Mr. Tarburton continued to explain that he was given the opportunity, since it was only a few days before they allowed him to pick up the additional year, and that it included an additional 2% at that time. Anything over 25 years was 2% more, so he gets 54% instead of 50%. Ms. Kober stated that in the past they have proposed that three (3) participants shall be retired, and two (2) participants shall be vested or active voice participants of the General Pension Fund. These individuals would be elected by the participants, retired participants, and vested participants of the plan. This was changed before the last meeting. It says three (3) participants, active and retired plan shall be elected by the active retired members of the plan. She is looking to increase the number of board members due to the number of participants there are in the plan and that three (3) members is not a proper ratio. Ms. Kober wants to be more equal with the membership that they have.

SPECIAL GENERAL EMPLOYEE PENSION PLAN BOARD MEETING ON APRIL 19, 2024 PAGE 3 Responding to Ms. Kober, Mr. Anderson stated that they have considered increasing flexibility in the membership. However, altering the board’s composition would be problematic as it would affect this board differently than the others. This change could jeopardize the protection of the city’s fiduciary interests, which they do not view as advisable. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Ms. Kober stated that the membership is only going to continue to increase because there are more people that are going to retire, and so they will be representing more people. Responding to Dr. Pillsbury, Ms. Kober stated that it depends on who runs. There are only three (3) positions that the members elect. Ms. Kober explained that they are asking for an increase to have more open positions available for retirees to participate. Responding to Ms. Kober, Dr. Pillsbury stated that they want to have five (5) people on board, three (3) retirees and two people that are vested or active employees. She asked are there three (3) people that are interested, because the three (3) positions could have been two (2) retirees and one (1) active member. Responding to Dr. Pillsbury, Ms. Kober stated that they would figure out if there is anyone willing to run for the board as a retiree. Responding to Ms. Kober, Dr. Pillsbury stated that people could have run in the past and that there could have been two (2) retirees and one (1) active person. She is asking to see if there are retirees that are interested and do the work. Responding to Dr. Pillsbury, Ms. Kober stated that there are active employees, vested members who no longer work for the city and retirees. She explained that there is a lot of makeup, and they need to continue to have active employees. The vested individuals are excluded because they cannot participate in the election; the notice specifies that only retired or active members can run, leaving no chance for the vested to serve on the board. There are over 300 vested people who are active and retired. Responding to Ms. Kober, Dr. Pillsbury stated that one (1) proposal is three (3) participants and in order for consistency with the other committees, they have a three (3) person board. The proposal is for three (3) participants active, retired, or vested. This would be best for people to get included and still have a panel of three (3) retirees if they win the election. Responding to Dr. Pillsbury, Ms. Kober stated that the Police Pension has 30 members and has the same size board. They have 334 members which includes retired, vested, and current employees. They have a larger number to represent. Responding to Ms. Kober, Dr. Pillsbury stated that she does not see a problem with five (5) members, but that wording allows them to have five (5) participants, active, retired, or vested rather than three (3) retired and two (2) active or vested. She believes that they should be allowed to have five (5) members. Mr. Anderson stated that the idea of adding one (1) more member is not unreasonable. Currently, there could be an unrepresented quorum consisting only of the city side. Adding one (1) more voting member would eliminate that possibility. They would always have to have at least one (1) retiree, as well as have one (1) city member, but either way still must have five (5) votes.

SPECIAL GENERAL EMPLOYEE PENSION PLAN BOARD MEETING ON APRIL 19, 2024 PAGE 4 Mr. Anderson moved for a motion to add one (1) member to the General Employee Pension Board, seconded by Ms. Kober, and unanimously carried. Ms. Marney stated that the existing fiscal agent is the Finance Department, and that an updated list of retirees and beneficiaries will be provided to the General Employee Pension Plan board members whenever a new application is approved by the board. She stated that there is limited information that can be provided and that she believes it needs to go back to legal for an opinion. Mr. Anderson moved for a motion to amend and remove Section #80-527, paragraph six (6) to strike “and beneficiaries”, seconded by Ms. Kober, and unanimously carried. Ms. Marney reviewed Section #80-527, regarding payment of funds. Ms. Marney noted that she would like to simplify the language to state that reports would be provided quarterly. The reports list quarterly pension benefit payments, the consulting services fees, contractual service fees, and any other fees. Ms. Marney recommended that they strike the word “electronically” and add that the reports be provided to them on a quarterly basis. She cannot guarantee that there will be electronic measures or what the future technology will be. Responding to Ms. Marney, Dr. Pillsbury reviewed that in Section #80-527, monthly cash receipts and expenditures will be compiled into quarterly reports, which shall be provided in writing and presented quarterly. Responding to Ms. Marney, Ms. Kober stated that the only clarification that she needs is that the reports will be provided at the quarterly meetings. The monthly cash receipts and expenditure reports would be compiled in a quarterly report, which shall be provided in writing and presented at the quarterly meetings. Responding to Ms. Kober, Ms. Marney stated that there was some concern about coming to the meetings and seeing the quarterly report on the screen but never receiving the report in advance. Responding to Ms. Marney, Ms. Kober stated that they would like to review the reports prior to the meeting and that they have been asking for it when they post the agenda before the meeting which is a week in advance of the meeting. Responding to Ms. Marney, Mr. Anderson stated that the agendas are posted a week prior to the meeting and the packets may be revised, if new information comes in. Assistant City Clerk Ms. Rivera stated that the agenda notices are done seven (7) days prior to the meeting and the packet information is only ever delayed if the information is delayed. Ms. McDowell stated that the monthly cash receipts and expenditure reports will be delivered on a quarterly basis and then quarterly reports shall be provided in writing seven (7) days in advance of the quarterly meeting. Ms. Marney moved to make a motion to amend Section #80-527, seconded by Mr. Anderson and carried unanimously. Ms. Kober reviewed Section #80-523, which outlines the procedures for the first meeting after each regular General Employee Pension Board election. The section mandates that the board elect a chairperson and a vice chairperson, who will assume the chairperson’s duties in their absence. The

SPECIAL GENERAL EMPLOYEE PENSION PLAN BOARD MEETING ON APRIL 19, 2024 PAGE 5 committee chair is responsible for leading meetings, preparing agendas, and ensuring open communication with the board as needed. Dr. Pillsbury stated that in Section #80-526 there is a difference. It states that the meetings may be called by the chair, vice chair, or three members of the board. She explained that according to the proposal, meetings may be called by the chair, and in the absence of the chair, vice chair may do so. They did not allow the three (3) members of the board to request it. Responding to Dr. Pillsbury, Mr. Anderson explained that the majority would have the authority to set up meetings at any time, as they hold the power to do so. Allowing three (3) members to call a meeting without the chair or vice chair could lead to confusion. Dr. Pillsbury moved to make a motion to amend Section #80-523 to accept the three (3) members, the chairperson, the vice chairperson of three (3) members of the committee, seconded by Ms. Kober and carried unanimously. Ms. Kober reviewed Section #80-528, regarding city flow rendered legal service. Responding to Ms. Kober, Mr. Anderson stated that if a member mentioned that the majority had voted and expressed a desire to appeal to the council for a second opinion, the council, would likely approve it. It is just a matter of council controlling the expenditures like it does for all committees and departments. He noted that the city has a comprehensive finance policy in place, which was developed to address potential conflicts of interest that could arise if an entity within the city hired an external attorney to represent its interests against those of the city. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Ms. McDowell stated that if something was not agreed upon, they could go to City Council. She believed that the situation was covered in an ordinance within the city code, in case a situation was to arise. Responding to Ms. McDowell, Mr. Anderson stated that according to the Charter, City Council has the authority to seek legal contracts they desire and there are multiple contracts. Mr. Anderson explained that they have the standard ones with the City Solicitor and others that are specialized in zoning, labor, and environment. Mr. Anderson further explained that if there was something egregious enough that the case could be made for the City Council to look at, then it will be done. Responding to Ms. Kober, Dr. Pillsbury stated that if they do not think Mr. Rodriguez does not have that expertise, then they could modify the last sentence to include his recommendation for outside help. Responding to Dr. Pillsbury, Ms. Kober stated that the problem that they have is that he is paid by the City of Dover. In certain instances, he could be biased for the City because that is who is paying him. She explained that if there is something controversial, they would like the opportunity to seek another opinion. Responding to Ms. Kober, Dr. Pillsbury stated that Mr. Rodriguez would recuse himself from any recommendation that he felt conflicted with the City and then that could open up their right to have another attorney to represent them. Mr. Rodriguez stated that he represents Council and if such a conflict were to arise, he would recuse himself from the situation to avoid being caught in the middle.

SPECIAL GENERAL EMPLOYEE PENSION PLAN BOARD MEETING ON APRIL 19, 2024 PAGE 6 Responding to Ms. Kober, Mr. Anderson stated that they have to seek outside legal assistance consistent with the city’s legal policy. He explained that their procedure would entail inquiring with the City Clerk’s office about any existing legal opinions on the matter. If none are available, their next step would be to approach the City Manager. If their concerns are not resolved to their satisfaction, they would then escalate the issue to City Council. Ms. Marney moved for a motion to remove from Section #80-528 “general employee shall seek outside legal advice”, seconded by Ms. Kober and unanimously carried. ADJOURNMENT Dr. Pillsbury moved for adjournment, seconded by Ms. Marney, and unanimously carried. The meeting adjourned at 6:09 p.m. Bob Gedney Chair, General Employee Pension Plan Committee BG/cw