-- a part. It's a derivative of, subsidiary of the main institution.
Yes, they were separately capitalized and they had their own ratings. So, we weren't really -- so, if you -- you can imagine we didn't enter into an agreement with name a bank, we entered into an agreement with a Swap subsidiary.
But all of the arrangements were made prior to the collapse?
Okay. Do you feel that those institutions have any responsibility to the people they do business with to do so in a way that keeps the relationship, you know, a fair relationship? I mean, my point is if I conduct -- if I take your money or I enter into a contract with you and I do things that create havoc in a particular business and you, because you entered into that with us, are paying penalties as a result of it, don't they have some responsibility for their practices that led us to this situation?
I guess if you -- I guess -- the contracts really don't have anything -- any provisions in those contracts that give us, as I understand it, that would 252 give us a right to go back and say you mismanaged your business in such a way that caused us, you know, to suffer higher costs. And where we, I think suffered most of our higher costs, were in having to -- we lost access to as much liquidity as we needed for these letters of credit so we had to terminate them, but what had happened is interest rates had fallen so we did borrow at lower costs, and while we had to make a termination payment, we actually mitigated a lot of the, you know, the costs by being able to access the municipal market at lower rates.
Do I think people should be -- do I think the banking industry needs reform and more regulation to avoid this sort of behavior in the future, yes.
But the past behavior caused us the problems, some of the problems that we're dealing with both on the City side and School District side. And to make it worse, and this is just besides that, 253 when they failed the taxpayer bailed them out.
No one went to jail, everybody got their bonuses as usual, and we bailed them out but the School District is laying off nurses and library aides and teachers because of this arrangement that ultimately the cause of the economy's collapse was their bad banking practices. Does that have any validity? Would we expect them to act in a way that would not cause the collapse of the national economy?
We would hope that our banking industry would not be so irresponsible.
And, again, I don't necessarily think the advice to do the Swaps were bad. I mean, we were acting -- when we were approving things like that we were acting on I think sound advice for the moment, but no one anticipated how badly they were behaving to put the economy where it was that made that advice probably something we shouldn't have followed in hindsight. Okay.
You know, it's 254 interesting, because I think at some point the --
Well, put it this way, if you went in to have your leg amputated and the doctor amputated the wrong leg, that's a bad medical practice.
And I think that what they were doing over those years was as bad as anything in medical malpractice or legal malpractice. It's basically banking malpractice. And I would hope, we're having discussions, I'm sure you're aware of, potential of trying to address that in some way. Thank you.
The greatest armed robbery without a gun in the history of the country, but what are we going to do? Sue them, that might be a remedy. The Chair recognizes Councilman Green.
Thank you. I guess we all have a claim against 255 the money-centered banks for lower values of property and everybody, we should just resolve all of this in Court. Let's see here. I have one final question. I guess that I am just curious, based on your experience before you were City Treasurer, at PFM and I don't know where you were before that, I know you did a lot of consulting for municipalities and counties and states and other people and I just wondered if you had to identify the top three or five finance-related best practices that you proposed in other jurisdictions or saw in places or advised them to adopt that we don't have, what would they be and sort of what would you propose? And if you don't want to do that off the top of your head, I am happy for you to think about that and provide it to Chair, but I would love your thoughts about that.
Are there any other questions for the Treasurer, and, if not, thank 256 you very much. You may go.
All right. Right on time. Board of Pensions and Retirement, would they please approach the table.
Good afternoon Council President Clarke, members of Council. My name is Francis Bielli. I am the Executive Director of the Board of Pensions. With me is CIO Sumit Handa. Also with me is our executive team, Leontyne Freeman, Teresa Gray, Shamika Taliaferro and Mark Murphy along with Deputy CIO Rhonda McNavish. If you would like, I will just dispense with the testimony and go right to questions. Let me know how you want to proceed.
Just summarize. I don't think I have ever heard anybody say that. I have been here for 12 years. 257
A person that eager to hear the questions from the City Council of Philadelphia. You're to be commended.
The Board of Pensions and Retirement has submitted a budget request for Fiscal Year 2013 for $8,776,000 which is the same as the Board's estimated obligations for Fiscal Year '12. Staffing for the 2013 budget contains funding for 77 positions that service more than 64,000 participants. This is two fewer positions than was budgeted for last year. The demographics of our staff are included in the testimony. The OEO goals, we did not meet our OEO goals and that is something that the Diversity Subcommittee of the Board is working on. The Board does take that very seriously. I should note that assets under management, which are not reflected in this testimony, are at 22.4 percent, although when it's reported to OEO it's the amount of fees that are paid which 258 currently through the second quarter of the current fiscal year are at 17.06 percent. The investment return for the most recent year, fiscal year completed by actuarial evaluation was 19.4 percent, along with additional factors that resulted in the pension fund being funded at approximately 50 percent, specifically 49.7 percent, which was an increase from the 47 percent of last year which was an increase over the 45 percent from two years ago. The assumption rate, the Board also voted to reduce the assumption rate from 8.15 percent to 8.10 percent. I think that's really all of the highlights, all of the summary, and we would be glad to answer any questions.
Great. Thank you. Couple of quick questions. In your testimony you talk about the percents of the plan increasing from 47 percent to 50 percent at the end of FY11 and over the past two years the percentage has increased from 45 to 50, and 259 actually I thought I heard in Mr. Dubow's testimony earlier that it was dipping below 50. What are the projections for this fiscal year, maybe I misheard them?
That's correct. Specific when the final actuarial report came out it was 49.7. The preliminary assumption we had was 50 percent. So, it is 49.7 as of June 30th, 2011.
Okay. So, I guess that's what Mr. Dubow referenced. Let me go over a question with respect to return. You talked about in your testimony again the testimony states the Pension Fund returned 19.4 for Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2011.
And was there anything that was done to achieve such a favorable rate that was somewhat higher than anticipated?
I think Sumit would answer that question, but I think that return 260 is in line with other bundled pension funds in general.
Right. I think the way that our asset allocation study was, and as a result the way that we allocated capital, it benefited from a rising market. If you look at 2011, fiscal 2011 June 30th, the market was very, very strong, obviously the second half of the year the markets did sell off. So, but at fiscal 2011 the markets were strong so we benefited from that. And our asset allocation was structured to capture that benefit.
Okay. Getting back to, what do we anticipate the number of retirees being in the upcoming fiscal year? Do we have a set number based on -- do we pretty much base it on DROP or other factors?
No, the number of retirees has been steadily increasing over the years. I guess you would call our Pension Fund a mature pension fund, where you have more people receiving benefits, i.e. retirees than active employees, those paying in contributions 261 to the fund.
Yes. I think all of the similar programs, whether it be Social Security, Medicare, they're all in similar situations. But the benefits have, again, we're over 34,000 people right now receiving one form of benefit or another. According to the Actuarial Report, as of July 2011, we had 26,600-and-some active employees. So, again, a very mature pension plan.
How much of that, and maybe none, but would ultimately to a degree be offset by the current employees, particularly the ones over the last ten years having a less favorable pension plan? Back in the old days like when a guy like me got in it in that great plan everybody wishes they were in.
In the Actuarial Report, it's interesting that you mention that, because on of the Actuarial Report it does have a breakdown of the funding percentage for each particular plan both in Plan 67 and in Plan 87. So, in Plan 67, which is, for example, the old Municipal Plan is funded at 43.2 percent, the old police plan 36.2, the old fire plan 36.9, for those of us who get the less generous benefits in the 1987 plan, the funding percentages for the municipal plan are 81.5, for the police plan 84.6, for the fire plan 84.6, but unfortunately you can't forget about the people who are currently receiving benefits or soon to receive benefits, but the Actuarial Report does actually break down the funding percentages per plan.
Okay. So, it's just so many more that are currently under the pension program. Okay. Thank you. I am going to turn it over. We have a number of colleagues who are interested in asking questions, so I would like to recognize Councilman Greenlee. 263
Thank you, Mr. President. And you're right, that is a great retirement.
Just a bit of a follow-up to what the Council President was talking about with retirement. You mentioned your testimony, I have a feeling this is a typo, because you say from the period July 1st, 2011 to February there were 490 DROP applications and 625 enrollments.
Remember, in the old DROP system people could apply, but then it would take a longer period of time to enroll. We could have received their applications in the prior period of time.
Okay, so they could have applied before that. I got it. 264
That's correct. I read that also. I read it over a couple of times, I said boy this doesn't look right, but an explanation was warranted.
Okay. I gotcha. And I assume that earlier period where there was a lot more applications than enrollments, was that around the time that there was the concern that the change in the program or the possible elimination, is that what you would probably attribute that to?
There was. There was, you saw the articles in the paper, it was back in August of last year, where there was talk of ending the DROP and so on and so forth.
And just lastly on that. Is there any kind of projection of what you expect for the next -- for the rest of this year, for this year?
I can provide to the 265 Chair, I actually have a -- because I think I heard this question asked in the five-year questioning and testimony about the number of firemen and police anticipated to retire via DROP -- so we actually worked up a chart which has 2012 through, well, you're going to laugh, 2028. Remember before you enacted the new legislation people were permitted to put a DROP start date somewhere out into the future, so some people did that. We have one person with a DROP start date of 2028. Now, I won't comment on that, but, no, we do have the figures. We have the high mark is 2015 where there is going to be 980 City employees retiring and I have a breakdown per plan of who is going to be retiring during those periods of time. I would be glad to provide that to the Chair.
That would be great if you could do that. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman 266 Goode.
Tell me how your diversity goal is determined. What is your goal setting process?
The goal setting process was actually -- we know there was the 10 percent goal -- but we did meet with Angela 11 Dowd, both this past year and the year before, 12 and because our percentage was on the lower end 13 we determined that the first goal would be 15 14 percent. We obviously with 12.96 did not meet 15 that goal. 16
I am asking how did 17 you determine -- how did you arrive at that 18 number? 19
It's in conjunction with 20 OEO because the percentage was on the lower end 21 we decided that that was a good starting point. 22
It was based upon an 267 aspirational goal of 15 percent to start with.
So, based upon the work that you do, you're familiar with the services that you procure, you know the market is out there, so are there available qualified disadvantage firms out there?
We did a study on a program called eVestment which actually gives the number of diversity managers available, we started -- we looked at the universe of managers and created a filter to get the universe of managers that have a two-year track record and active product with at least 60 million of assets under management. The reason we picked two years is because we have an Opportunity Fund which reduces the requirements of being in the large pension fund to give 268 people an opportunity. That Opportunity Fund started out at $80 million in 1999, it's now up to over $200 million, and 90-plus percent of that Opportunity Fund is WMBE companies. So, when we ran this filter the total percentage of firms that were minority firms were 13.4 percent of the whole universe of firms, and 7.7 percent of all of the products, the investment products that were out there, so we did run that search. We find because the assets are measured by fees, the availability of diversity managers in the areas that warrant the large fees, hedge funds and private equity, are very, very scant as far as the universe is concerned. So, we have worked with our consultant in private equity, we currently have a new consultant, and we have stressed the importance of bringing managers to the Board for the Board to consider that are diversity managers. So, we really are working to increase that and the Board is conscious of that. In fact, we met a couple of months ago in order to increase the participation in our minority brokerage program which just recently 269 exceeded percent. So, we are continuing in those areas, but I would say that it's a very, very small universe, 13.4 percent of the potential firms we do business with that would fall under those diversity headings.
I appreciate 7 everything you said. 8 I think you're probably the first 9 department to come here that actually told us 10 you did an availability study, which is how 11 it's supposed to be done. 12 There is a disparity study done on 13 behalf of the City on an annual basis that has 14 a wealth of information, it seems that for the 15 most part the information is not being used, so 16 I appreciate the fact you did do an 17 availability study because disparity exists 18 when availability doesn't match utilization. 19 But on the issue of utilization if you have 20 identified qualified disadvantaged firms, you 21 can choose to give them more work. 22
Well, that's correct. 23 And we have firms, for example, Geneva 24 Capital is a firm that started in our 270 opportunity fund managing $10 million and then graduated up to, I'll call it the big fund, they're now managing $30 million for us. And we have had companies like that in the past that get their start in the Opportunity Fund. In addition, for minority and women-owned firms we also have relaxed criteria for the larger funds, putting aside the Opportunity Fund, the standard criteria is five years of managing a tax exempt institutional assets, for the relaxed criteria it's three years. We also have standard restrictions on percent of assets managed by the firm and assets invested in a particular product, 10 and 20 percent, that is relaxed to 25 percent and 60 percent. In order for firms that don't have a lot of business, don't have a lot of opportunity, we understand that the assets they're managing for us will be a larger piece of their entire portfolio.
As of December of 2010 FIS Group was added as the second opportunity fund manager and there are plans to continue to expand it as we speak.
Thank you, Councilman. The Chair recognizes Councilman Henon.
Certainly your level of details are impressive, so thanks for coming in this afternoon. I have a few questions with regards to the rise of the level of funding. 272
The plans being funded. Correct me if I'm wrong, you said two years ago you were at 45 percent?
That's outstanding. What would contribute to that? I know you had mentioned several things a short while ago. Is it because of you've made better investments in your process in investment managers or how you invest or how you're structured? So, is it the investments, is it the market, and are there any other underlying 273 factors that can contribute to having a, let's just say, a metered move, the needle move, significantly like that? Would it be in addition to the low cost of the union workforce as far as the contributions are concerned from 2009 to the present? Would that be a contributing factor as well?
I think all of those things it's fair to say are contributing factors. The investment return obviously is a large contributing factor. And I would be glad to provide a copy of the Actuarial Report for you to look at or glad to sit down and explain to anyone who wants to get the details, but the actuary makes certain assumptions such as payroll growth, number of active employees, so on and so forth. When they are lower than his assumptions are, then it results in a reduction of liabilities and an increase in funding ratio. So, yes, certainly the fact that the active participation decreased by 4.5 percent certainly had an effect. The payroll growth being only one percent, versus his assumed 3.5 percent payroll growth, certainly was a 274 contributing factor as was the investment return.
So, I don't know if it was -- we've had some several long days here this week and a few last week, so things kind of run into each other. I had asked a question about with regarding to the deferred contribution payment, the MMO with the City, so we had a deferment and we're starting to make partial and full payments, was it last year and this year, is that correct, or this year and next year?
And the following year. All right. My question was over the length of the five-year plan would the needle move in a positive direction as we're headed now as far as it being a better funding, and the answer I had, well the answer that was given to me, was, no, it's not. So, are you saying that over the last two years we moved almost five percent, so what is that dollar value I think that we could compare to over the 275 last -- how we moved five percent in dollar value and the additional, you know, contributions that are being made to basically no movement?
Unless I'm misunderstanding it. I don't want to tell you here today that I fully understand the process.
If I can try to clarify what you're asking, if you're asking that when the City pays back the amount that they deferred over the next couple of years will that have an effect on moving the needle, and I believe the answer is no because the amounts deferred plus the interest that is going to be paid are considered an asset of the fund. It's like loaning money to someone, you know you will it get it back and you'll get it with interest, so that's already counted in because of your actuary evaluation.
I mean, because we're amortized, you're amortized over 30 years or more years -- 24
There is a ten-year 276 smoothing. So, for example, in 2008-2009 the loss to the fund was substantial, it was $1.2 billion, but you're not measuring that all at once. Up through the date of his evaluation only 30 percent of that loss had been realized, so it's smoothed out over a ten-year period. So, the gains of the fund are not actually realized immediately, neither are the losses.
Good then, you answered that question, because I was just unclear on how, you know, how it could move it percentage wise quickly like that and now I can realize it. I have some retirement questions, but I will defer to the next round.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Green.
Thank you, Mr. President. The city-wide Business Application 277 Initiative identified by OIT as Admin Modernization Phase I, Workforce Management, HR, Payroll, TA Benefits, does this project include modernization of the pension benefit calculation system?
We have been involved. We are not with the first group with HR and payroll, however, the OIT is aware that --
We are not in Phase I directly, but we are involved in the planning sessions and the meetings that will be coming up with the vendors because the data, that HR data, payroll data, we need that to be integrated with our system somehow. We rely on that data. So, there is a possibility we still may be involved, but as of now I am not sure. I think that's something that's still up in the air. 278
I think the idea is actually to get pensions involved because of all the things that Fran just said, it's so integral to the whole continuum.
So, there will be automatic calculation of pension benefits.
The calculation, I think we talked about this last year, the calculation aspect has largely been eliminated as an issue. We have created templates through existing Microsoft software to Microsoft Excel to do the actual calculations, however, it's the inputting of the data that is time consuming.
It's not just the inputting of the data, it's there is no audit trail between what was in the main frame and what is put in the spreadsheet which could result in someone getting far more or far less, probably far more has happened in the past more than far less. I am confident it doesn't happen anymore today, but there is still no 22 connection audit trail between an Excel spreadsheet and the main calculation.
Well, no, the calculation 279 template that we have is actually printed out, put in the imaging file, which is an electronic file, and the data is put onto the system. So, the data is all on the system.
I understand, but nobody goes back and rechecks the calculation every time.
That's correct. It's not integrated with the payroll and HR and that would be helpful.
Right. What would be an amount of money needed to significantly impact the funding ratio of the pension system?
So, we are now 50 percent funded because our unfunded liability is, what, four-and-a-half, 4.7 billion, which has that I guess every 10 percent is probably like one-and-a-quarter billion around, so, and I'd think you'd want to get to at least 70 percent, so you'd probably, you know, need at least a couple of billion dollars to really -- 280
To have an impact on how much the City has to contribute from the General Fund to significantly lower the amount the City has to contribute from the General Fund, it would take a couple billion.
Well, I'm sorry, I was answering a different question. I was actually answering to get to the 70 percent funding level, which is probably kind of a minimum of where you would want to be. To reduce, and I guess it also depends on what you think of as significantly reduce it, but I'm not -- I'd probably have to go back and get calculations from the actuary to see, you know, what would it take to reduce the contribution by ten million, what would it take to reduce it by 20. Is that the kind of question you're asking?
Yeah, both from a perspective of what we could add to there through asset sales, for example, and with respect to the extension of retirement age or increased City-side contributions on an annual basis of one percent, two percent, three percent. 281
So, one is kind of like a big lump sum payment, annual increases or a change in retirement age, are those three things --
Yeah. I mean, what's the, you know -- or said another way what is the perfect storm for us to sort of get to a happy place. Is there one, you know?
I guess it depends on happy place for whom, but yes there is a way to get there.
The Class 200 spending, how much is unencumbered, and all contracts over $50,000, do you have that 282 information available with you today that we have been asking of every department?
If you have it, just provide it to the Chair and we'll see if we need to do call backs on it and I have a few other small questions that I'll submit. Thank you.
Thank you, Councilman. Real quick, let me ask a question with respect to fund managers and how do we go about selecting fund managers for a portfolio?
Well, it depends on whether it's the public securities or whether or not it's for alternative assets. If we go through the public securities, meaning public equities or bonds, it will go through an RFP process and we would issue an RFP seeking, for example, a high yield manager, which we currently have one outstanding, an RFP outstanding right now for that, and they would apply, and staff along with the consultant 283 would do independent checks on those managers that applied and then we would vet them and obviously go through a subcommittee and that subcommittee would make a decision on whether or not to hire that manager. For the alternative assets there is no 7 RFP process. Staff, along with their consultants in perspective areas, whether it be private equity, real estate or hedge funds, we meet with managers all the time, we look at the both qualitative and quantitative backgrounds on whether someone is suitable for the plan and we make a determination on whether or not to present it to the Board, and the Board obviously has the final authority on whether or not to hire or to hire any manager.
Is there some formerly established criteria or is it just at the call of the one staff and subsequently the Board, or do you -- what level of flexibility do you have as it relates to fund managers? Well, there is some flexibility, however, we do require sort of a GIPS, which is 284 sort of a track record, if you will, that's required of managers whether it be on the public side in terms of the equity or fixed income. On the alternative sides there is also criteria, depending on the asset class, whether it be private equity, real estate and hedge funds, I can provide all the information in great detail for you if you're interested, but there are criteria. However, there is flexibility in terms of selection in the alternative space as well.
Okay. Is there like a ratio in terms of the level of worth of the fund/manager that would be required before it's given serious consideration?
Generally speaking, we would like the manager to have approximately anywhere between -- excluding the Opportunity Fund -- but generally we like the manager to have at least $250 million of assets, generally, again, speaking at least five year track record. Generally speaking, again, I can break it down for you by sector as well, excuse 285 me, by asset class as well.
So, I wouldn't -- if you were to provide information I wouldn't see anything as low as 150 million dollars, 125?
There is flexibility, and as Fran alluded to earlier, when we look at MWBE there is some flexibility there, also in the Opportunity Fund there is some flexibility of managers having at least $100 million.
That's correct, however, there are other -- we are flexible even on the hedge fund side. There is no really set number per se. We would like to have certainly a three to five year sort of track record along with at least I think $100 million as well. You also have to keep in mind it's not easy -- the cost of compliance these days is also quite expensive.
So, a lot of managers, you know, they're ramping up, it's also challenging 286 for them at that time, and also from our point of view it creates a risk as well.
Something we have to be cognizant of before we were to look at someone under that level. It doesn't mean we won't, generally we avoid it.
Okay. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Brown.
Good afternoon, gentlemen. I just have one question which is a follow-up. I just want to go on record too and say thank you for your due diligence with regards to availability of firms that may have the capacity. And so the number you gave, that's nationwide, correct?
Okay. And, so, the flip side of that is that a number of departments have come before us and are using firms that are not local. There are dozens and 287 dozens of that type of firm that's local. So, if that's the other reality we're reckoning here with. So, in your case, what type of -- how do you go about alerting professionals that there are opportunities in this department?
OEO gets all of our RFPs. Also, we send them to various Chambers of Commerce throughout Philadelphia, the African American Chamber of Commerce, the Pennsylvania Chamber of Commerce, the Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce. I think there is about six or seven Chambers of Commerce that we send notice of a pending RFP to.
We also do have a percentage of local investment managers. We had 13.02 percent as of February of our investment managers are local managers. So, we do track that and we are part of the Diversity Subcommittee that I mentioned met a couple of months ago.
Part of what we did talk about was trying to also increase the 288 percentage of local managers that receive business with the Pension Fund. We realize that's an important issue. We all live in the same city.
Well, you need to know how much we appreciate hearing that from where you sit. And further, your leadership in figuring out how you create opportunity for local companies is to be commendable as well.
So, we ask that you share that with your comrades throughout the various departments because it's doable if leadership makes it so.
And I would just add that I appreciate those comments, they're very kind, but the Board is very cognizant of that also, and, you know, we make sure that we give the Board the tools that they need to understand what is going on because you're right, someone may not realize what's out there, what's 289 available, and, you know, boards are not in the every day flow of the work, so to speak, and I mean we meet once a month, we're in contact much more frequently, but it's my responsibility, it's our responsibility to make sure they have the information that we need. We've seen that in the City with other boards that don't get the information they need and we see what happens. So, we're very cognizant of that and we try to make sure they have all the tools they need in order to make informed decisions. STOP
Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to follow-up, sir, if you would, you had mentioned earlier, which, you know, I can't echo enough of the complements 290 being thrown in your direction about coming here prepared with some breakdowns, you know, that you can provide to the Chair in addition to because I didn't get all what you had broken down, could you provide a list to the Chair at your convenience the eligible retirement, folks who are eligible, the number? I don't need to know who, the number of eligible retirements, you know, for the five year -- for the next coming five years in the plan and who has entered into the program, in the retirement program, on a yearly basis and what department? So, those who are eligible and those who have entered into the program listed by department.
And have not necessarily come in to retire. Are you talking about DROP or are you talking about -- because until someone comes in to retire --
Let's put DROP aside for 291 a second. When someone signs up for DROP, we know that they're going to retire within the maximum of four years. When someone doesn't enter DROP, they could come in tomorrow to the HR person, resign, the HR person makes an appointment with our counselor, so I don't know until they actually do that, but I can tell you who is of eligible retirement age. We can run those.
That's what I'm asking for, eligibility, and those who are in the retirement program, whether it's DROP, PLOP, you know, who had signed up, all right, and completed, you know, the seminars and said hey look, this is my retirement date, you know, years out so we get a snapshot of attrition, you know, the need for, you know, workers in different departments, you know, for planning ahead.
For the next five years. If you could provide that to the Chair, 292 thank you, I'd appreciate that. And speaking of which, I touched on a little bit, is there a plan, and I don't know, I guess that would be the Administration, or is there a retirement plan for this natural attrition or do we plan on replacing some of these folks in the departments throughout the City or is this just the natural attrition process that the City experiences.
Mr. Dubow will answer that, but we do work in conjunction with the Administration to provide all of the DROP numbers so they can have an idea of what is coming down the road.
Only because, you know, we might want to compare it to the quality service that the departments offer.
Yep. So, there is a significant amount of planning going on in the Administration of how to handle the large number of retirements that are coming down the next four or five years. And, for example, the police department, you know, the last time there were 293 900 officers in DROP over the next five years, so we are putting into place an aggressive hiring process to make sure we don't see a big drop off in the number of officers. And we're doing something similar in fire. We looked at it, I mean across the board, and where we see big hits to the departments, we're trying to make sure we plan for that. Actually even in my department there are a number of senior people who are leaving, so we're in the process of figuring out how to replace them, how to make sure we don't have gaps.
That's right. And I am glad to hear you have a plan. If you do have a plan policy, I don't know if it's written or not, but, you know, it would be great if there was one available for us to take a look at, but that was the initial intent of early retirement is to properly plan management wise for the natural attrition and folks retiring. So, is that correct?
Okay. Good. 294 Over the last four years as far as retirement goes, can you provide a list to the Chair of the amount of workforce and those retired in the last four years so we -- the last four years, I am using four years arbitrarily because of terms, you know, of -- well, elected service here, so in the last four years broken out by year the amount of people who have dropped or retired.