The City's minutes for this meeting are not on file in this archive. This briefing states only what the City's agenda lists. Nothing here is taken from the machine transcription.
No agenda file for this meeting is held in this archive. The agenda packet button on this page opens the City's meetings-portal page for it, where the City may or may not have posted one.
The recording's machine transcription is below. It is unverified: words and names may be misheard, and it cannot establish who acted or how anyone voted.
Agenda (the City's wording)
The City's agenda items for this meeting are not available as a list here; see the agenda packet link on this page.
Transcript Partial transcript
Machine transcription of the meeting recording. The words are the recognizer's, except where a passage is marked as corrected or machine re-recognized; most have
not been checked against the audio, so words, numbers and names can be misheard.
It describes what was said. It cannot establish who voted how, an amount or an outcome — the City's
minutes do that (above).
A time links to its passage, and “Copy link” copies that link. No recording can be started from here.
31 suspect passage(s) marked in place.
How this transcript was made. New machine transcription of the whole recording, with 3 voices separated from the audio.
2 short machine repair(s) (2 word(s)) are labelled in place, with the original words beside them: an ordinary word was replaced only where two further machine readings agreed on a different one.
Checks run on this transcript: the recognizer's own warning signs, whether a voice was detected where the words are and a language review for likely mishearings.
A second, independent machine reading was compared with it word by word: the same words for 91.5% of 1,755 content words.
Dotted words (61 places) are ordinary wording differences: hover or tap to see the other reading.
31 passages (15% of the words) are marked suspect: their words are not shown ("unclear audio") and support no statement: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ; the language review questioned them; or no voice was detected there.
Agreement between two machine readings is not verification.
Speakers were separated by voice. A plain name rests on evidence tied to that voice; “provisional” is a name from an earlier text-only pass and is not verified; “Speaker N” is an unidentified voice.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:00:22–00:00:27 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
whether I retire or not, I should be able to elect my beneficiary election now because I'm already eligible to retire instead of waiting until I physically retire.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 00:00:50–00:00:59 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
know, God forbid, were to, you know, pre-discriminate your retirement, it's, I mean, the beneficiary is going to be clear, but it's a benefit. The option is going to be whatever the pre-retirement death benefit is. You're not going to be able to select like a 100% joint and survivor annuity.
bit before the meeting, just, just he and I, just to be sure, assuming that we're able to change the ordinance so that we have, you know, options. I think what Pat was asking me, and correct me if I'm on Pat, was if we get that change in, can he do like an advanced directive? And I don't think you can because you don't yet know what the benefit is even, you know.
No, you could, so I've done it in other plans where you could select, you know, whatever would be the highest amount payable to the beneficiary, which would probably be 100% joint and survivor benefit.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up; a language review questioned the wording · 00:02:21–00:02:25 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
The part about deceased employees ‸ eligible for retirement is what we're talking about. That somebody like you who from an age and or service or a 25 and out person.
Yeah. So, so basically what, and I think Steve knows what I'm trying to say. Yeah. So I would designate what my benefit would be now. I don't think you can do that.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:03:23–00:03:24 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 00:03:37–00:03:39 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Any survivor. But can you, can you, is there any question about having made in the, or the, the survivor, if heaven forbid he passed, not having the ability to make an informed decision, let's say it's his wife on her part, once she's got the actual numbers? Isn't there an issue? Yeah.
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:04:10–00:04:11 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
you look back, I'm looking at B, and it says deceased employees eligible for retirement. And that was, that was affected back in 99. I was thinking that Tammy had said it was new. No, this has been in their plan for a long time. So, yeah, otherwise payable. In other words,
I'm just concerned that do we create some problem if he does an advanced directive? And his surviving spouse says, well, no, I don't want that now that I look at the numbers. But you could write it that that person could still have an option to select, like, instead of joint and survivor, they could select, you know, life with tenure certain or something.
Yeah. All right. Let me take a crack at drafting the ordinance. And I'll, you know, we'll pass that around as well for comments prior to going forward.
Okay. If we could then, Stu, it would be a motion to authorize you to draft a proposed ordinance with review by the trustees and to have the actuary prepare a letter of no impact?
Yes. All right. Very good. And then just a third item on the agenda is just to notify you that we're going to just be updating summary plan descriptions. Really not much to update, but we do have to update it and distribute it every two years. So it's time to do that. So we'll have it for the next meeting. Other than that, nothing further. It's afternoon.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:06:31–00:06:31 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
I have sent you the fall school, the FPPTA school, and the Division of Retirement. Their free school is going to be over in Orlando. So if anyone, you know, is going to attend, just get with me and we'll get it taken care of. The Division of Retirement one is actually at the end of September, and the FPPTA is early October, also in Orlando. Let's see here. We don't have anybody's terms expiring because of the four-year terms, so we don't have to do anything on that.
The governor made an actual statute preventing any government agency from paying any type of ransom for, like, a cyber attack. Does that affect us at all, Stu? Or is that just...
Yeah, I'll have to look and see if that's applicable to just state agencies or whether it goes down to municipal agencies as well. So, I'll take a look, but, yeah, I had not heard that.
get it renewed. I'm getting sort of some of the same comments from the agent, but I have been in touch with them. As a matter of fact, just on Monday, and I'll be submitting the applications. So, we'll see.
Yeah, they didn't really talk about the premiums just so much as that that market is tightened up. And, like, ‸ the application last year was much less... I mean, it was much shorter and many fewer questions than this year.
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said) · 00:09:14–00:09:19 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
We have under new business... This is our annual administrative budget. As you know, this has been a statutory requirement since 2015. We prepare it. It's not an appropriations budget like the city has, you know. But we do that and then we submit it to the city as our plan sponsor and we'll send it to the chairman to distribute via your internal system for the members. And that has to be done and sent out before October 1. It's for next year... next fiscal year. And then, as you may recall, after the end of this fiscal year, then we do what's called a detail of what our actual expenses were. So, the action that we do is that the board, if you accept it, is that you approve that budget and you provide for distribution as noted to the city and to the
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:10:29–00:10:29 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:10:39–00:10:41 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:11:58–00:12:13 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording