File name: JAC Budget Hearings FY 13-14_20111206_124024.dcr Folder: C:\Documents and Settings\HAppropriations\Desktop\Recordings\2011 0 ~ 12/6/2011 1:25:18 PM ~ 4 ~ 12/6/2011 1:25:22 PM ~ Berger: Draft Bill Retirment plans benfit increases . 1:02 ~ 12/6/2011 1:26:19 PM ~ Gruber: History: Committees motion to draft bill that eliminted automatic colas and other automatic increases that the plan can not support Pg 2 Valuations Line 7 -13 Even though the plans are funded higher than other states, as constructed by statutue, the plans were not intended to support automatic cost of living or other nor can the plan support these pg 2 line 15 - 19 Actuarial value - compared to market value of assets pg 2 line 21 ratios hav gone down while the market values have gone, reason for noting this is clearer on page 8. Scenerios are all there ..will not go through Plan A Big Plan Plan B state highway paterol C Law enforcement plan D judicial retirement plan E paid fireman plan B F the air national guard firefighters pg 5 G paid fireman plan A pg 8 numbers you were presented were based on no colas. pg 10 rations are only a point in time, assumed rate of return of 8%, 3.63 % last 3 years. Investment return of 1/2 major deviation rate Pg 8 line 4, where current actuarial vlaue of assets is higher than the market value of assets, need returns in excess of 8.0% Pg 8 line 12 - 18 change in returns Employee is largest 88% ppg 8 line 19, public employee plan Pg 9, ratio has dropped to 85% event though 2001 ratio is based on actual cola and 2011 on no cola so getting behind ratios Other plans the trends hold true Coals given from 91 to 08, your increase in benefits is 34%... Pg 10, lines 12 - 21 Multiplier increase , adhoc increase of 3 per month added 300 million pg 11 lines 1 - 8, how long to get to the fully funded rate...estimated at 40 years. pg 11, kines 10 -16 Stability in providing stated benefits, not promised or guaranteed, need a raion in excess of 100% to maximize stability. Pg 11, line 18 need 120% ...not saying can not make contributions outside of the plan assets, pg 12 line 4 - 13, when giving increases consider the full cost through the entire life. do not give decision without going through the entire matrix. put decision tree into words in statute. Pg 12 Consider pg 13 : review of assumptions Pg 13, line 5 - 7 can not find in plan, should consider what effects increases have on peoples retirement decision. pg 13 line 13 -23 Retirement Board duties..mandatory education to all employees. some of this is already done, required and mandated in statute. pg 14: should nto expect the plans to provide 100%. There is no Colas automatically within plans as constructed. pg 14 ..when big plan was created, does not bind legislature to anything other than contributions pg 15 removal pg 15 Repealers pg 16 : staff comment need a planned document, and some type of appropriation needed, Additional handout: additional repealers, most will have language that colas will be made in this manner, when you get into the manner, most say colas may be granted, most havea cap and must be actuarially sound, I can walk through the differences 15:50 ~ 12/6/2011 1:41:08 PM ~ Berger: Questions? 15:59 ~ 12/6/2011 1:41:17 PM ~ Harshman: I missed the last meeting. Did death benefits change? 16:22 ~ 12/6/2011 1:41:39 PM ~ Gruver: did not change except for the cola portion 16:38 ~ 12/6/2011 1:41:56 PM ~ Harshamn: people hired after July 1 16:46 ~ 12/6/2011 1:42:04 PM ~ Gruver: not this bill, another bill 16:53 ~ 12/6/2011 1:42:10 PM ~ Harshamn: sidebar conversations. do we need to study that long, if successful and we move forward, it would be nice to have new employees come forward under self funded colas staff bring a plan 17:39 ~ 12/6/2011 1:42:57 PM ~ Berger: We need more information like the cost and implement. I do not know if we have time. 17:57 ~ 12/6/2011 1:43:14 PM ~ Summers: We have discussed that but not enough time until July 2012 and can not prepare enough that you need to prepare a bill for this session. 18:28 ~ 12/6/2011 1:43:46 PM ~ Harshman: A year from now you can have that 18:42 ~ 12/6/2011 1:44:00 PM ~ Berger" An interim study 18:58 ~ 12/6/2011 1:44:15 PM ~ Esquibel: pg 2 ..legislature finds wyioming plans were not intended to and cannot support automatic cost of living.... Did all plans have automatic cola? 19:35 ~ 12/6/2011 1:44:53 PM ~ Gruver: All plans subject to this bill have cola provisions, written differently for 4 of the plans. MOsst wer made uniform in 2004, where Baord had adjustments ..had caps, provision for giving cola for the lesser of the cost of living adj or the cap, . 2004 finding of the board was the increase would be actuarially sound. differences in plans. Historically, most plans did not have Colas, big plan 47, changed in 53, most colas were ad hoc along the way. 21:22 ~ 12/6/2011 1:46:40 PM ~ Harshman: I deduct they were not automatic 21:37 ~ 12/6/2011 1:46:54 PM ~ Steve: correct, never had that situation except for fireman A..all others were decisions not automatic 22:05 ~ 12/6/2011 1:47:22 PM ~ Meier: inter im topic defined benefit contribution colas, retirement bnoard has set forth a number of options, self-funded, reducing overall benefits on base, regular defined benefit pkg or list %. different ways for employees to self fund, lot of options, talked about looking into next session. 23:43 ~ 12/6/2011 1:49:01 PM ~ Berger: other questions 23:51 ~ 12/6/2011 1:49:09 PM ~ Gruver: Rejp escquibel's questions, look at other provisions. 9 4 19. the benefits shall be adjusted as follows, each individual benefit may be increased by the cost of living or the cap. romanette 5...increase based upon only be actuarially sound law enforcement G1 - increases in benefits shall be increased, board may reduce that if reduction is necessary to keep actuarially sound. Is it automatic if Board says shall be increased if Board allows that. do not know how to answer if it is automatic, that is the language 25:52 ~ 12/6/2011 1:51:09 PM ~ Harshaman: If we move forward, then this committee must be looking at if the plans are actuarially sound 26:19 ~ 12/6/2011 1:51:37 PM ~ Gruver: if you pass this bill, the cola provisions will be removed then in statutes will be provisons for colas in the future, provides a road map for the legislature in 2012 making benefit adjustments. 26:56 ~ 12/6/2011 1:52:13 PM ~ Berger: legislation with findings is not often done 27:11 ~ 12/6/2011 1:52:29 PM ~ Gruver ; to help Courts understand 27:21 ~ 12/6/2011 1:52:38 PM ~ Steve: no complaints os section 2 - 5. comments on section 1..unuusal to put findins in a bill, esp 10 -12 pages of them. I would ask that the committee takes the findings out and put in a file to refer to, not put in statutue. pg 11 The word should is used instead of shall. Does it prohibit future legislatures from doing things we thought ...picked 120%, suggest 100% is adequate. This bill does not preclude the legislature from granting colas or other increases. It does not say shall not, says to look at thiese things original report: if system funds for colas, ask for direction, nothing in here for that either nonsystem funds for colas that discussion is best handled with the gov and this committee before the session begins instead of admnetments on the floor. discussion vetted in a different manner, nothing in here about that process. This is our concerns about the bill is drafterd 30:37 ~ 12/6/2011 1:55:54 PM ~ Pedersen: Reason for putting in statute, can not find a piece of paper in LSO in 30 years, stating finding led us to perhaps improperly funding those colas with poor market performance, if you do 100 and you are at 3, knock yourself off, chisel away from funding....important where we know future legislatures can find information. 31:59 ~ 12/6/2011 1:57:17 PM ~ Gruver: Normally we do not have finding in statutes. Committee recommended this, just as effective legally, although not necessarily practically, says should, as can not bind future legislature includes analysis that should undertake, so direction is given, 33:00 ~ 12/6/2011 1:58:18 PM ~ Edmonds: comments about automatic not automatic, starting July 1, 2011, what were those determinations. bring to committee for the last 10 yrs. 33:37 ~ 12/6/2011 1:58:55 PM ~ Steve: Valuation reports will indicate where we werer, breakeven methodology ..can get you that. 34:10 ~ 12/6/2011 1:59:28 PM ~ Nicholas Can we just delete automatic cost of living? 34:30 ~ 12/6/2011 1:59:47 PM ~ Grover I really don't know why "automatic" was put in there. What it is trying 35:15 ~ 12/6/2011 2:00:32 PM ~ Nicholas: This almost suggest that there was 173...? 36:06 ~ 12/6/2011 2:01:23 PM ~ Williams I think it would substain a level in 2010. We probably transferred a fund amount into it 36:50 ~ 12/6/2011 2:02:08 PM ~ Nicholas: We intercepted funds before it got to the General Fund Page 12 Line 5 Includes change ot multipliers, Looks like this could be as expensive as cost of living increases. I kind of like what you have done ther. Lines 14-23 Does the language fully fund this? One acturary thinks it well be good for 20 years 39:39 ~ 12/6/2011 2:04:57 PM ~ Summers: Lines 14=-22, and 1-7 on the next page. Right now we are using a 30 year term. Look at it for 40:38 ~ 12/6/2011 2:05:56 PM ~ Nicholas If your to provide outside funding 30 years, I don't know if that takes care of it or not. 41:48 ~ 12/6/2011 2:07:05 PM ~ Williams Long term is a standard term, 30 42:25 ~ 12/6/2011 2:07:42 PM ~ Nicholas I feel like we are bargining with you guys now. I'm not saying that is a problem. We talked about 100, 120, 130, then people start thing about COLA's Then there is no protection for when the market is down. 44:49 ~ 12/6/2011 2:10:06 PM ~ Williams Downturns are not predictable. I agree we need a cushion. I don't knw if we need 120%. 45:44 ~ 12/6/2011 2:11:02 PM ~ Nicholas I"ve set here for 8 years. The firest time that the notion that the day I started serving on this committee, it would have effected all my consideration. We would like to have these but only if people dont' make the same mistake. There are folks who don't believe we can learn from these mistakes. If you want to ignore it, so be it. I ashamed that it was at 894% 49:23 ~ 12/6/2011 2:14:41 PM ~ Williams: I share your concern with past boards. I don't think we can garuntee that mistakes won't be made in the future. I don't feel that we have these things cotified in the statutes 51:12 ~ 12/6/2011 2:16:30 PM ~ Nicholas I agree past boards make decisions on the information they have in hand. We want to memorilize it so that the next guy will not make the same mistake. We forget lessons all the time. Pressure to make COLA's 53:34 ~ 12/6/2011 2:18:51 PM ~ Merier I think percentage is a firewall for protect Lets say you went to 110%, say one morning you were at 113%, You could take that 3% and give cola's. I would only be for the retires that are in the poos. That way the corpus woulld be effected. If you really look at the numbers, 110% is probably not too much. With out those firewalls and ring fencing, we could be in trouble. It does need to be memorilzed in some way 58:47 ~ 12/6/2011 2:24:05 PM ~ Pedersen We will see what we end up doing. When you look at auctiary studies what you shoulc and should not include. This is a huge piece of our budget. We are doing very funding our retirement system. At some point we need to let future bodies know, therefore we should leave this verbiage in. That way other people that occupy these chairs will have some history. 1:01:48 ~ 12/6/2011 2:27:06 PM ~ Nicholas If you are going to fund a COLA, what a bout having a seperate fund for COLA's. Then if you reach a certain of funding, that represents a certain amount and the funding that goes with it. 1:03:43 ~ 12/6/2011 2:29:00 PM ~ Williams: Mier;s idea and the notion of scalping. Think issues of trust law that taking for the retirement for a COLA. Created expectation of younger members for COLAs if senior members receive. Intergenerational fairness take into account. Trust funds must benefit all the members. Has possibilities must be investigated. Separate COLA that is self selected riases questions on use of the funds. 1:08:00 ~ 12/6/2011 2:33:17 PM ~ Mier: Only way to fund a separate plan a separate COLA. State could strip of a percent that the State would ge general fund and could be used 1:08:49 ~ 12/6/2011 2:34:06 PM ~ Williams: Yes 1:08:59 ~ 12/6/2011 2:34:17 PM ~ Esquibel: Page 14 of draft" not expecting that benefit would be 100$ of retirement income ... What concerns him if this committee makes this decision and employees storm the capital. Does the members of committe or board of expertise to make these decisions. 1:10:46 ~ 12/6/2011 2:36:04 PM ~ Williams: No member ought to rely soley on the retirement income. Must rely on Social Secuirty and other investments. Pension only 1 element of retirement income. 1:12:00 ~ 12/6/2011 2:37:17 PM ~ Steward: When look at section 3 on repealers is it intention to replace them with findings? 1:12:35 ~ 12/6/2011 2:37:52 PM ~ Gruber: Replaces it with map of how to proceed in the future. 1:12:53 ~ 12/6/2011 2:38:10 PM ~ Steward: What find confusing is the parameters what would allow a COLA. It might to conclusion that we could grant at COLA if reach 120%. What triggers reached to permit COLAs in the findings. 1:13:48 ~ 12/6/2011 2:39:05 PM ~ Gruver: It was his intent of laying forth the math for granting COLAs. Factors for need for COLAs would need to be added. 1:14:30 ~ 12/6/2011 2:39:48 PM ~ Steward: Lay out in findings or statutes that provisions for COLA to be funded in the future through other funds. 1:15:30 ~ 12/6/2011 2:40:47 PM ~ Berger: Isn't that our perrogative. If had excess revenue could implement it? 1:15:51 ~ 12/6/2011 2:41:08 PM ~ Nicholas: Want to respond to constiuency that it is possible. If we want to do COLAs could do it. Would have to increase to 18% to support COLAs. No soft message that at level we are contirubing could do this. If increae by 5% proposed we would evaluate it. One of questions to follow-up is it a good discussion to have on external funds to create a COLA account. Can you manage the funds, have other states done this... 1:18:14 ~ 12/6/2011 2:43:31 PM ~ Williams: The states are beginning to grapple with COLAs and how might do this. One of the things worked with actuary on is a spearately funded COLA with employee and employer funds. If did not participate would have no expectation of a COLA. Individuals coudl contribute and invested by the system. Otherwise they forfeit the employer contribution. See the shared approach as reasonable. For those retirees for whom there is no opportunity for this. 1:20:59 ~ 12/6/2011 2:46:16 PM ~ Beger: Other questions. 1:21:05 ~ 12/6/2011 2:46:22 PM ~ Harshman: Would like to get going for it. 1:21:19 ~ 12/6/2011 2:46:36 PM ~ Berger: Would anyone like to speak in favor of the bill 1:21:42 ~ 12/6/2011 2:46:59 PM ~ Shurger: Fender of Federated Fire Fighters of Wyoming. She represents them. Most of them are in Fireman Plan B in the City and County Sections of Statutes. It covers 10 districts. There is bit of confusion but not expert in persion plans. Her comments related to Firemans' plan B. It is one of 4 plans that Firemean participate. Fireman A is closed with enactment of statute for Plan B -- local firemens fund. The volunteer firemand and fireman state plan are others. Per Fireman B plan, contributions from the cities/districts and employees. This plans funding has contribution rate of 20%. 1:25:36 ~ 12/6/2011 2:50:53 PM ~ Nicholas: If have shorter length of service doesn't apply re 20% vs a vs his earlier comment on 18%. 1:26:20 ~ 12/6/2011 2:51:38 PM ~ Shurger: Fireman B down't contirbute to Social Security. Fireman Plan B re acuturial report on the Retirment Board website, the ratio of assets to liabilitities with an overfunded amount of $11M... This was on the assumption of no COLA. NUmbers run with COLA there could be a COLA of 1.3% . Most significant effect is the 2008 downturn. The downturn 13.8; 2009 was 21%... It has not paid out COLA. Mr. Gruve noted that the state board shall consider a COLA , but board has not even though the acturial board said it could. Because of the fund residing in cities and counties because of striking provision of COLA out of Fireman B. It is the bills intent to eliminate COAL from all of the COLA except where legislature consider. What we woudl ask because fund is municipal and is doing well and given that these persioners iand members in funds have increased their contributions to make it healthy There should be provisions to carve out Fireman B from bill and allow Board 1:32:43 ~ 12/6/2011 2:58:00 PM ~ Mier: What is amount to consider a COLA 1:32:52 ~ 12/6/2011 2:58:09 PM ~ Shhurger: If gave COLA of 1.33% that it would be 100% funded. 1:33:17 ~ 12/6/2011 2:58:34 PM ~ Mier: If there was amount of money take out would be $11M... 1:33:41 ~ 12/6/2011 2:58:59 PM ~ Shurger: Doesn't know the amount and the legalities of issues. 1:34:01 ~ 12/6/2011 2:59:18 PM ~ Mier: Legality would reduce contribution and fund a separate fund so it is a separate account. 1:34:31 ~ 12/6/2011 2:59:49 PM ~ Shurger: Doesn't know. 1:34:42 ~ 12/6/2011 3:00:00 PM ~ Pedersen: Would like to play through scenarios and how this pertains to this piece. In global shortfall it would fall to state to make it up If we leave it out and spin it our. If Firmena B has shortfall would fall to state 1:36:14 ~ 12/6/2011 3:01:32 PM ~ Shurger: If there is a shortfall and jeapordixes the fund. One of the places to look that we would need to increase the empolyee contribution 1:36:54 ~ 12/6/2011 3:02:11 PM ~ Nicholas: When members ask for contributions your employers come to state for more funds. There are annual requests for fire protection and ongoing costs. If want to live under different rules and operate your own funds. Then municipalities would not ask for deficits. 1:38:17 ~ 12/6/2011 3:03:35 PM ~ Shurger: Did not say that they have asked the Board for COLA, but acturial said COLA could be done. 1:39:19 ~ 12/6/2011 3:04:36 PM ~ Esquibel: Retirees do not depend a 100% on it. 1:39:55 ~ 12/6/2011 3:05:13 PM ~ Shurger: Don't pay into social security for salaries paid into this fund. 1:40:30 ~ 12/6/2011 3:05:47 PM ~ Esquibel: A young firefighter this is his retirment unless invested or had another job. 1:40:54 ~ 12/6/2011 3:06:12 PM ~ Shurger: That is correct. 1:41:04 ~ 12/6/2011 3:06:21 PM ~ Nicholas: If account is aministered welll. With DCI ...now having to pay 1% higher han you and paying each year for sinds of the pass. If hit 120% then can come. No reason to treat different than DCI or ... If don't play by the rules then coudl have aonther plan. 1:42:42 ~ 12/6/2011 3:08:00 PM ~ Shurger: We are at 20.5% contribution. Fireman haven't received the benefits that have placed a burden on this plan. We think contributions adquate. Expertise rests with Board if it represents sound position to offer COLA. 1:43:55 ~ 12/6/2011 3:09:13 PM ~ Beger: Other comment 1:44:05 ~ 12/6/2011 3:09:23 PM ~ Berger Motion on the bill. 1:44:21 ~ 12/6/2011 3:09:38 PM ~ Nicholas: So move Rep: Second 1:46:06 ~ 12/6/2011 3:11:24 PM ~ Nicolas: Nicholas: Page l6 ines 22-23. Offer cocept amendment that there is no long term funding. Perderson: Second Berger: Motion carries Nicholas Page 12 line 5 insert the language that "changes to appliers and" Pedersen: sedcond Berger: Motion carries 1:48:19 ~ 12/6/2011 3:13:37 PM ~ Harshman: Line re 120% Would like to strike the 120% where there are three years of 100% or higher so long as it doesn't take below 100% 1:49:27 ~ 12/6/2011 3:14:44 PM ~ Steward: Second 1:49:32 ~ 12/6/2011 3:14:49 PM ~ Nicholas: On and against the amendment 1:49:43 ~ 12/6/2011 3:15:01 PM ~ Nicolas: Gives buffers to benficiaries for COLAs and multipliers. ...misses entirely the lesson we learned 1:50:52 ~ 12/6/2011 3:16:09 PM ~ Harshman: It would not be granted if it brought it under 100%. If the actuarial plan included disastric event or big market move, then I would agree, On and against the amendment 1:51:33 ~ 12/6/2011 3:16:51 PM ~ Pedersen: Pg 9 findings, goes over factoring ...3 catastrophic events, market, housing market, 2010 ...goes all the way to 84% and that includes 3 catastrophic events..shows ...on and against the amendment 1:52:30 ~ 12/6/2011 3:17:48 PM ~ Meier: That difference is 29.18 % then three years is probably too low since we have a 5 yr smoothing process in the plan, would probably want to mvoe to a 5 yr basis so it corresponds to smooting 5 yrs 1:53:10 ~ 12/6/2011 3:18:28 PM ~ Steward: question, is there something in matrix that analyzes the trends of our decision making process. Instead of looking at a snapshot,, trends for 3 yhears. 1:53:47 ~ 12/6/2011 3:19:05 PM ~ Williams: I do believe the decision tree discusses the trend of the fundign of the plan. If the contribution level were sufficient to grant the benefit increase. If the contribution level as well as..then you would not consider it. There is a trending in the .... 1:54:45 ~ 12/6/2011 3:20:02 PM ~ STeward: That is not in our bill. 1:54:54 ~ 12/6/2011 3:20:11 PM ~ Gruver: That smoothing is not in the language 1:55:04 ~ 12/6/2011 3:20:21 PM ~ Harshamann: I do not think there has been any testimony of 120%, experts say 100%. I think 120 is too much. I encourage your support 1:55:38 ~ 12/6/2011 3:20:55 PM ~ Berger: All in favor of 100% failed by a hand vote. 1:56:02 ~ 12/6/2011 3:21:19 PM ~ Esquibel: Motion to add plan B behind plan A. reason people run into burning bldgs is for pay and benefits, firefighters do not get social security when in the future, people are not there to save them,....delete th comment behind plan A and add plan B on page 7 Second by Hastert.. 1:57:29 ~ 12/6/2011 3:22:47 PM ~ Berger: Second on motion, discussion 1:57:43 ~ 12/6/2011 3:23:01 PM ~ Nicholas: on the bill, against the amendment...higher levels of benefits, if communities believe they need benefit pkg increased then increase their salaries or the amount of contributions that warrant a higher benefit level. The point is that whatever we promised the funding is there 1:58:40 ~ 12/6/2011 3:23:57 PM ~ Berger: The motion failed by a voice vote. 1:58:52 ~ 12/6/2011 3:24:09 PM ~ Hastert: Ringfencing colas from main ......further analysis shall include the ringfencing in a seperate account of any liabily incurred as the result of a cola 1:59:41 ~ 12/6/2011 3:24:58 PM ~ Berger calls for second. 1:59:48 ~ 12/6/2011 3:25:06 PM ~ Meier: I would like it to be stronger... would rather say no cola unless you ringfence it. most I can get is to say..ringfencing should be considered. Ringfencing means when you lok at a cola you look at funding it outside of the corpus itself. How the money gets into the fund would be part of the analysis.. draws attention to future legislatures with problems ...and benefits of having a seperate account...never impacts the corpus in the fture. 2:01:18 ~ 12/6/2011 3:26:36 PM ~ Berger: discussion 2:01:26 ~ 12/6/2011 3:26:44 PM ~ Nicholas: pulling funds out and limiting liabiliy to that fund is intriguing but look at in interim ,,do not have enough information at the time. will create smaller accounts that are managed fund wise..testimony today does not give comfort that it would be a good decidion. As we consider the money to fund colas ...manage the money and when it is gone it is gone. 2:02:36 ~ 12/6/2011 3:27:54 PM ~ Meier: That is what I am talking about it...findings just say that the analysis would include the analysis 2:03:15 ~ 12/6/2011 3:28:33 PM ~ Nicholas: alternative..add a subparagraph f on page 16 on line * "consideration of isolated cola accounts to confine the liabily of Colas to seperate accounts. 2:03:56 ~ 12/6/2011 3:29:14 PM ~ Hastert: friendly amendment 2:04:04 ~ 12/6/2011 3:29:21 PM ~ Nicholas: let bruver do the language 2:04:15 ~ 12/6/2011 3:29:32 PM ~ Gruver" Pg 13, kine 8. The potential liability of the costs incurred by a cola ..... 2:04:40 ~ 12/6/2011 3:29:58 PM ~ Berger: no further discussion , motion carried by a voice vote 2:05:01 ~ 12/6/2011 3:30:18 PM ~ Berger: Question on the bill Roll call all ayes except esquibel. 2:15:11 ~ 12/6/2011 3:40:29 PM ~ continuation after break, 2:15:35 ~ 12/6/2011 3:40:52 PM ~ Berger: Draft 109-2 please walk us through those recomendation. 2:15:58 ~ 12/6/2011 3:41:16 PM ~ Gruver, benefits for members hired after...to address the teacher issue. pg 2 line 6 - 15, it is new general members only. would not affect firefighters or police officers in the big plan..only for general members of the big plan.. pg 3 defines the guts of the bill, pg 3 line 5, not previously contributing member, or withdrew and did not redeposit after that date..non vested exception for military...under federal law must allow tthis instead of age 60, new member will be for 65 Rule of 85 is not changed Pg 6 a conforming amendment pg 6 line 10 - 13 can buy up to 5 yrs in the plan won't get to be a pg 6 line 15, change for early retirement benefits, moved everything up 5 yrs pg 7 lines 4 - 20 carving out ...law enforcement has a different level and specified the smae thing for firefighters 2:19:51 ~ 12/6/2011 3:45:08 PM ~ Meier: How will be vested in 4 yrs but require 5 years of service to compute annual salary...lines 10 and 11 pg 7 2:20:18 ~ 12/6/2011 3:45:35 PM ~ Gruver: 5 yrs is just to computer your highest salary for your multiplier. The 4 yrs is for if you get to take your benefits. 2:20:45 ~ 12/6/2011 3:46:03 PM ~ Meier: Vested in 4 yrs, figuring the average in 5 yrs and receive a retirement benefit so figure 4 yrs average 2:21:21 ~ 12/6/2011 3:46:39 PM ~ fGruver that is correct 2:21:26 ~ 12/6/2011 3:46:44 PM ~ Berger: continue 3 2:21:37 ~ 12/6/2011 3:46:55 PM ~ Gruver: multiplier down to 2% for the new members pg 9 conforming amendment for definition 2:22:00 ~ 12/6/2011 3:47:18 PM ~ Berger: Questions? 2:22:08 ~ 12/6/2011 3:47:25 PM ~ Nicholas: Retirement folks, recommendation we are at 80 % must take some short term measures and some long term measures, 2:22:32 ~ 12/6/2011 3:47:50 PM ~ Summers: That is correct, had acuarial look at change ...if we meet other assumptions, what would it be other 2:23:14 ~ 12/6/2011 3:48:32 PM ~ Pedersen: You would be at 77.2% if stayed on track if where we are right now. Making the changes would be 86? % > It is 10% better but 13% unfunded 2:24:20 ~ 12/6/2011 3:49:37 PM ~ Harshman: Not much else to do but get rid fo the rule of 85. 2:25:00 ~ 12/6/2011 3:50:18 PM ~ 2:25:04 ~ 12/6/2011 3:50:22 PM ~ Sommers: Changing to rule of 90 is negligible 2:25:19 ~ 12/6/2011 3:50:36 PM ~ Steward: Thought fiscal note missing. It would explain changes benefits. 2:25:45 ~ 12/6/2011 3:51:03 PM ~ Gruver: Will have fiscal note 2:25:53 ~ 12/6/2011 3:51:11 PM ~ Harshman: Did do some work with increasing contributions 2:26:12 ~ 12/6/2011 3:51:29 PM ~ Sommers: Have not looked at contribution increases 2:26:25 ~ 12/6/2011 3:51:43 PM ~ Harshman: Could produce what 1% or so increases 2:26:46 ~ 12/6/2011 3:52:03 PM ~ Sommers: A lot of work to place on actuaries 2:26:59 ~ 12/6/2011 3:52:17 PM ~ Harshman: Okay 2:27:14 ~ 12/6/2011 3:52:32 PM ~ Berger: amyone to testify for bill 2:27:28 ~ 12/6/2011 3:52:46 PM ~ Berger: Move by Nicholasl second by Mier 2:27:50 ~ 12/6/2011 3:53:08 PM ~ Nicholas: Concern about restriction of COLAs . If don't take precautions it not only impacts our budget, but next exployee groups has to work longer and with less benefits if don't get it right. Those coming up from behind are not represented 2:29:06 ~ 12/6/2011 3:54:24 PM ~ Pedersen: If look at study no. 8, lowering asset level from 8% to 7.5 or 7.75. Oracle of Omaha looking at lesser amount. Even if we do all of the pieces your still best case scenario will be 13% unfunded in 2040. We are pushing it further down the road and not representing new employees who wont be getting a better deal. He is against the bill 2:30:59 ~ 12/6/2011 3:56:16 PM ~ Berger: Question called 2:31:06 ~ 12/6/2011 3:56:24 PM ~ Berger: Roll call. 2:31:30 ~ 12/6/2011 3:56:47 PM ~ Berger: Tally there are four no's. 2:32:09 ~ 12/6/2011 3:57:27 PM ~ Nicholas: Why are against it. 2:32:30 ~ 12/6/2011 3:57:47 PM ~ Pedersen: He views as pushing down the road. It is unfari to people unhired yet. If we are to fix-- benefits, increaseed benefit levels. But increasing so that some received a better return. He does think a defined benefit plan is better. He doesn't think fix with a 8% rate. 2:33:52 ~ 12/6/2011 3:59:10 PM ~ Niicholas: Great respect for positions and give every one there money to invest. It did not happen with contributions for health insurance. Remember the experiece of where retiree health insurance paid. Where TIAA-CREF where have portable plans in University. He has zero confidence that legislators in future will say your took your money and lost it. If go do defined confributions, people will object. He believes that health insurance is unconstitutional. He asks that as we talk about it because redistricting occurs in House that we put these bills to start in the Senate. He hope that support as bandaid is better than doing nothering. 2:37:22 ~ 12/6/2011 4:02:40 PM ~ Mai: As far as adopting rules, requires majority of each hody. So the motion failed. 2:38:02 ~ 12/6/2011 4:03:19 PM ~ Mier: This is one of things where pick up marbles and go home. We have a sitatuion where nothing done it will be 77% funding. Is that a vote you can live with? He agrees that 6-8 years won't hit 8%. Has to do with employment numbers back until 2018, GDP not over 3, cna't spend ourselves out of this. Will have dismal returns. The percent will be around 60% in 2040. Know we have to do somehting. We know will have to ask for contribution increases. Rstructing with investment allocation will help some. We are in better shape than 45-46 states. If choice is defined contribution plan and new employees coming on a different plan. This plan is lot closer thant defined contribution. If we do nothing, then the can falls of the cliff. 2:42:04 ~ 12/6/2011 4:07:22 PM ~ Pedersen: We are not speaking about different plans. We are talking about difference in benefits. If we are donw the road in 30 years, we will lose people, we save money from defined contribution. When have 20K employees for state and everyone who retired received a better benefit than me. Asking for more money for contribution won't change the benefits will still be done. Will run into it in eithe r case. Maybe begin with contirubition level. 2:44:05 ~ 12/6/2011 4:09:23 PM ~ Edmonds: Pedersen has said most of her comments. It is a fairness issue. Should apply to each employee. It is a frustration that have been steadily rebuffed. 2:45:02 ~ 12/6/2011 4:10:20 PM ~ Berger: Further comments 2:45:21 ~ 12/6/2011 4:10:39 PM ~ Gruver: (Passes out Highway Dept. bill.) Berger: Highway bdraft 162.W3 2:46:56 ~ 12/6/2011 4:12:14 PM ~ GRuver: Emplyee increase for Wyoming STate Highway Patron , Games and Fish Warden and Criminal Investigaor. It provides for employee and employer amounts of 1.65 and 1.62. Instead of salary adjustment could apply ... There is appropriation for amendemtn in section 2. Can't pay employee increase with appropirations. 2:49:11 ~ 12/6/2011 4:14:28 PM ~ Berger: Testimony 2:49:19 ~ 12/6/2011 4:14:37 PM ~ Berger: Nicholas moved and Mier seconded. Berger: Motion carried. Berger: Roll call. 2:49:59 ~ 12/6/2011 4:15:16 PM ~ Berger: Bill passes. One no and rest aye. 2:50:44 ~ 12/6/2011 4:16:02 PM ~ Nicholas: Have all the bills start int he Senate. 2:51:15 ~ 12/6/2011 4:16:32 PM ~ Berger: Have Public Service Commission before us. Menere: Introduces Zlomke, Freeman, Lewis and Oxley. Menere: Our situation is stressed. More general rate cases increases at once. Utiltiy, power companies rate increase presented. On top have Pacific energy cost adjustment case. There is a load of rate cases and associated cases. There is a order from Rderal Communications. Rural rates made affordable from public to internet based protocol rate. May put larger demands on universal servgice rates. So iadditionally, so have substantial change and thinking about change in our portfolio. Main issue for Governor, the two people required through stimulus money. We took at where were in 2009 and remove asst administrator and did not fill the spot. Rocky Mountain Power adivsed more staff. So stimulus package made moeny available for three poisitions. Positions taken on with idea of buildign capacity. So two positions less expensive than the administrator. Need positions process cases needed. Hired electrical engineer and statistician. Federal money go for another 16 month helpign with positions. Believe growing enough so will ask authorize them. Really need the help. It will not impact the general fund. Gas prices are flat arnd are backing up to millevey. Have stopped traveling and taken running agency leanly. Wanted Commission to enable filing electronically -still need order and complaint system. 3:01:13 ~ 12/6/2011 4:26:31 PM ~ Mier: Curious why USF budget went down. 3:01:32 ~ 12/6/2011 4:26:50 PM ~ Menere: Telecom prices going up so reason form trending down with USF. Federal level abandoning wire line for broad bandj. Century Tell might not want to deal with federal restrictions. We could be only wire line support system in town. Federal orde talks about phasing in Federal America fund. When we look at Federal order. State will retain its role in eleigible communications carriers and services provided under borad band fund provided by the state. Feds say we may expect to send people to send out in the field to asses if broadband really provides. Will have to see how this unfolds. Fed is right that the country ourside of rural is moving to broad band. Lot to be thought out how trasformation iwll take place. Of essential lines in state that are plain. Only 1)% plain everything else has additioinal offerings. Technology changing reeadily. FCC has acted and it is now on plate. 3:06:23 ~ 12/6/2011 4:31:41 PM ~ Mier: He will stop by the office 3:06:38 ~ 12/6/2011 4:31:56 PM ~ Berger: More questions 3:06:44 ~ 12/6/2011 4:32:01 PM ~ Nicholas Collecty up to 3 mils . 3:06:53 ~ 12/6/2011 4:32:11 PM ~ Menere: Collect up to 3 mils from retail 3:07:12 ~ 12/6/2011 4:32:30 PM ~ -- Broadband , piplenads, electricla services ... 3:07:32 ~ 12/6/2011 4:32:49 PM ~ Nicholas: Z fudns. With gas prices you are bumping up cpaciity with 3 mils 3:07:55 ~ 12/6/2011 4:33:12 PM ~ Meneres: USF its is own place and 3 mils is separate 3:08:12 ~ 12/6/2011 4:33:30 PM ~ Nicholas: You bump up in 100 and 200 series 3:08:26 ~ 12/6/2011 4:33:44 PM ~ Zlmke: 3 mils for 100 and 200 and only that 3:08:41 ~ 12/6/2011 4:33:59 PM ~ Nicolas: what is it 3:08:49 ~ 12/6/2011 4:34:07 PM ~ Zlombke: 3 mils is 4.3M. If take OCA and administration it is 1.4M. We are going to be close to 3 mils 3:09:32 ~ 12/6/2011 4:34:50 PM ~ ZlomkeL only asses half of budget each year. Zlomke: 1.5233 was last year. Gas prices have been down. Gas utilities make up 25% of budget. Top 15 companies make up 85%. 3:10:41 ~ 12/6/2011 4:35:58 PM ~ Nicolas: Have sheet on it and would like to see trends 3:10:55 ~ 12/6/2011 4:36:12 PM ~ Mier: With rate increases since only where get money. Getting close to bumping 3:11:21 ~ 12/6/2011 4:36:39 PM ~ Menere: Mattrer of integrity. Difficulty is that it comes and goes. They have carry over so different from others. But at end of day then get to 3 mils willl have to cut. 3:12:10 ~ 12/6/2011 4:37:28 PM ~ Mier: Didn't question integrity. At some point in time when know 3 mils doesn't cut it, then we will have to consider other revenue sources. Need to have fund to do job. Everyone need tos be prot6ected. 3:13:01 ~ 12/6/2011 4:38:19 PM ~ Menere: Committed to making it work. So won't change on my watch. We make everyone mad. 3:13:28 ~ 12/6/2011 4:38:46 PM ~ Berger: other questions 3:13:34 ~ 12/6/2011 4:38:51 PM ~ Peterson: What on the grant total 3:13:47 ~ 12/6/2011 4:39:04 PM ~ Menere: $750K is total three years number. decided what could do since grant said we would build capacity. We know we can sustain two over time 3:14:31 ~ 12/6/2011 4:39:49 PM ~ Peterseon: One of agencies where we improve technology that we increase work 3:14:49 ~ 12/6/2011 4:40:07 PM ~ Menere: Electronic is good. We receive vast numbers of paper. Working to get away from paper. It makes faster and easier for everyone. There will be places where paper is needed. 3:15:59 ~ 12/6/2011 4:41:17 PM ~ Berger: Further comments. 3:16:26 ~ 12/6/2011 4:41:44 PM ~ Nicholas: See Governors' summary on page 6. 3:16:44 ~ 12/6/2011 4:42:01 PM ~ Berger: Have gone over them 3:16:55 ~ 12/6/2011 4:42:13 PM ~ Menere: Governor did say no on three smaller items. 3:17:09 ~ 12/6/2011 4:42:27 PM ~ Berger: Agency 270 Office of Administrative Hearings, Ms. Baumer and Ms. Dranz. 3:17:59 ~ 12/6/2011 4:43:17 PM ~ Deb Baumer speaking, Lyunne Dranz is asst and office manager, provide service for disputes between ...DUI and workers compe Handout 1 - a history sheet you asked for numbers of employees and when we increased. WE went back to 2001, outlines kinds and numbers of cases received over the year....28b is up to 147, that is any other case that is not DUI or workers comp 3:20:22 ~ 12/6/2011 4:45:40 PM ~ Berger: From 2001 have gone from 7 to 10 employees 3:20:35 ~ 12/6/2011 4:45:53 PM ~ Baumer: down on driver's license, increase 3:21:10 ~ 12/6/2011 4:46:28 PM ~ Berger: are cases opened or reviewed? 3:21:21 ~ 12/6/2011 4:46:39 PM ~ Baumer: Sweet water county, natronal county and laramie county are high. Fremont county comes and go. Sweetwater is very high. 3:21:59 ~ 12/6/2011 4:47:16 PM ~ Nicholas: do you keep track by sector 3:22:10 ~ 12/6/2011 4:47:27 PM ~ Baumer: No we keep track by county 3:22:22 ~ 12/6/2011 4:47:40 PM ~ Nicholas: might be worthwhile to keep it by sector, workmans comp, now in interesting time where employers can fire people or people move on, workmans comp is a way out, 3:22:55 ~ 12/6/2011 4:48:13 PM ~ Baumer: Workmans comp is quit a spike 3:23:08 ~ 12/6/2011 4:48:26 PM ~ fNichoals: Brett, put on your list when dept of workforce services comes in, ask them for report by sector and what the spike means. it may be more people contesting, not inc in benefits 3:23:47 ~ 12/6/2011 4:49:04 PM ~ Berger: Might be analyst 3:23:57 ~ 12/6/2011 4:49:15 PM ~ Baumer: may be analystst 3:24:05 ~ 12/6/2011 4:49:22 PM ~ Berger: how do we check that 3:24:13 ~ 12/6/2011 4:49:31 PM ~ Baumer: ask Joan 3:24:20 ~ 12/6/2011 4:49:38 PM ~ Berger: add to list 3:24:27 ~ 12/6/2011 4:49:44 PM ~ Baumer spike in DUI cases but new laws enacted. The only thing off the plate is refusal to take breathalyzer...issues can go away because you can ...like to say optimistic but numbers stay high 3:25:24 ~ 12/6/2011 4:50:42 PM ~ Nicholas: Can take a refusal wihtin 10 days , change arraignment and get license back 3:25:46 ~ 12/6/2011 4:51:04 PM ~ Baumer: dui, no right to refuse, police gets warrant, hospital won't do the test without consent, now have no chemical test, no penalty for not taking it 3:26:22 ~ 12/6/2011 4:51:39 PM ~ Nicholas: lose license 3:26:27 ~ 12/6/2011 4:51:44 PM ~ Baumer: do not lose license for refusing a chemical test, the language was deleted, still the chance someone may nto have a test because it was not completed or the machine did not work. Hearing examiner is judge in Evanston. Now charging drivers with interference if they can not get blood test. 3:27:25 ~ 12/6/2011 4:52:43 PM ~ Meier: Where is the duty for the individual to get the test" Doesn't the duty falls on the officer? 3:27:48 ~ 12/6/2011 4:53:06 PM ~ Baumer: yes it is but if the driver still refuses when they get to the hospital, issue of the hospital. policy is to not touch the warrant until a district court tells us to lok at the adequacy of the warrant. if staff refuses there is not test, hospital does not want to get sued 3:28:50 ~ 12/6/2011 4:54:08 PM ~ Nicholas: if refuse breathalyzer take license and give a temporary. 3:29:06 ~ 12/6/2011 4:54:24 PM ~ Baumer: There is not such thing as a refusal 3:29:18 ~ 12/6/2011 4:54:35 PM ~ Nicholas: Will you submit to breathalyzer? They say no, they site you, get a warrant and go get blood, then temporary...am I wrong? 3:29:53 ~ 12/6/2011 4:55:11 PM ~ Baumer: get 30 days temporary permit. if there is no chemical test, then there is no penalty, drivers services can not send out a suspension. 3:30:28 ~ 12/6/2011 4:55:45 PM ~ Nicholos: ...suspension for refusal is all gone? 3:30:41 ~ 12/6/2011 4:55:58 PM ~ Baumer: not in statute 3:30:46 ~ 12/6/2011 4:56:04 PM ~ NIcholas: so guy who complys with search warrent gets penalized 3:30:59 ~ 12/6/2011 4:56:16 PM ~ Baumer: may still refuse at the hospital, 3:31:08 ~ 12/6/2011 4:56:26 PM ~ Nicholas: was benefit to pleading guilty, not there anymore? 3:31:21 ~ 12/6/2011 4:56:38 PM ~ Baumer: better off doing nothing, do not speak to them, people get charged with interference, additional charge of interference is to ....some people will slip through cracks with no drivers license suspension, first offender status, the conviction suspension is for 3 months, 3:32:28 ~ 12/6/2011 4:57:46 PM ~ Nicholas: have to convict on roadside 3:32:35 ~ 12/6/2011 4:57:53 PM ~ Baumers: correct, runs concurrent, so makes what we do able to be able to be taken at the court level.......six months later if there is a convincton, no additional suspension because they have already served 3:33:26 ~ 12/6/2011 4:58:43 PM ~ Nicholas: SR 22, first offender 3:33:34 ~ 12/6/2011 4:58:51 PM ~ Baumer: yes on sr 22, don't know on first offender 3:33:44 ~ 12/6/2011 4:59:02 PM ~ Baumer: biggest thing on oah plate is this all other case load...very busy with it, child abuse, child neglect, dept of health, medicare, medicaid, all the agencys, teacher accountability act in 2012 3:34:43 ~ 12/6/2011 5:00:01 PM ~ Berger: is it the chart starting with fy 07 3:34:55 ~ 12/6/2011 5:00:13 PM ~ Baumer: that goes with exception request 5, that is the money coming in OHA account that is established so I can do all other cases, 120 per hour, what is left over goes to dept of transportaton and dept of employment, returning quite a lot of money but not enough meony in this acct to keep operating at this level. I have had to go through the BLL process every biennium and get more money so we can keep doing these cases...windfarm case a week long, transportation, hotel,, costly. The teacher accountability can not be done by video conference..must be there with other board members Ex: 2005 Bll 40, 000 in 2007 account doubled, then needed BLL in 2009 received 50, 000. This fiscal year, we are estimating a 6000 short fall. We think we supported the numbers we asked for although the govs office did not. asking for 23,000 in acct so we do not have to go through the BLL account Govs office cut it in half, his recommendation did on page 23 pg 13 Joan Evens and Cox, supportive of new position, given 2 yrs ago but before it was filled, it was frozen, so never received it. The number of cases is relatively the same but the complexitiy of the cases has gone up 3:39:27 ~ 12/6/2011 5:04:44 PM ~ Berger: would address the teachers accountability 3:39:38 ~ 12/6/2011 5:04:55 PM ~ Baumer: yest it would, I agreed to monitor drivers license caseload and eliminate ..position if I have full time position. 3:40:05 ~ 12/6/2011 5:05:22 PM ~ Gerger: Gov approved, 3:40:12 ~ 12/6/2011 5:05:30 PM ~ Baumer: pg 15 one legal support person to support legal examiner person, maxed forces, both of funding agencies and gov support this position 3:40:48 ~ 12/6/2011 5:06:06 PM ~ Buamer pg 16...computer hardware..we are outdated, I agree with the govs rec. We got our numbers before the OSIO contract hearing examiners...provided handout with salaries, 3:41:37 ~ 12/6/2011 5:06:54 PM ~ Berger: give locations, BArton, fremont county Drell is in casper, conducts workmans comp kath is in powell, lavery luhm in worland, rose is in evanston, workers comp covers western side of the state. I broke down based on number of cases. Driver license make 208per case. workers comp make 748 per case, people who present case make 128 per hour including employees of workers comp. My request for an increase is to try and get them to approximately the sam salary, based on negotiations done yrs ago.. last raise was 2008 3:44:13 ~ 12/6/2011 5:09:31 PM ~ Berger: what is long time? 3:44:20 ~ 12/6/2011 5:09:37 PM ~ Baumers % yrs, in 2007 terminated some of the contractors I inherited, made a huge difference in docket and within 30 days to get out of office, tough to get contracts signed, need increase to hold on 3:45:11 ~ 12/6/2011 5:10:28 PM ~ Berger: how much teleconferencing ? 3:45:22 ~ 12/6/2011 5:10:39 PM ~ Baumer: 2 meetings a year, lots of email, during meetings talk about statewide issues and set policies 3:45:44 ~ 12/6/2011 5:11:01 PM ~ Esquibel: What is avg time when someone requests a workmans comp hearing before they see the examiner? 3:46:09 ~ 12/6/2011 5:11:27 PM ~ Baumer: No case remains on the docket for longer than a year, hearing held and decision in writing within one year, may sound long, discovery process takes a while, medical can be complex, 60 days for them to get an attorney, then filing... 3:47:00 ~ 12/6/2011 5:12:18 PM ~ Berger: more questions orcomments 3:47:08 ~ 12/6/2011 5:12:26 PM ~ dfPeterson: Examiner amount of contracts, Is this regardless of case load? 3:47:28 ~ 12/6/2011 5:12:45 PM ~ Baumer: yes 3:47:33 ~ 12/6/2011 5:12:51 PM ~ Peterson: no trigger 3:47:40 ~ 12/6/2011 5:12:57 PM ~ Baumer: no 3:47:43 ~ 12/6/2011 5:13:01 PM ~ Peterson, are there some where the case loads are less? 3:47:54 ~ 12/6/2011 5:13:12 PM ~ Baumer: every case that comes in I send out, so I have the number of cases, so I know slots, with private atttornies, receiving about the sam amount; may change by county, try to make it as even as possible. approximately... of cases coming in have a hearing 3:49:06 ~ 12/6/2011 5:14:23 PM ~ Berger: Thanks you. 3:49:12 ~ 12/6/2011 5:14:30 PM ~ Agency 220 Environmental Quality Council Mr. Ruby 3:49:35 ~ 12/6/2011 5:14:53 PM ~ Ruby: Good evening, long day, previous testifier say they re small. we are small, 3 staff, 7 member board council requested two exceptions to the budget ...court reporter fees are paid by DEQ. council said to create a realistic budget that has true costs... in talking with DEQ asked if they would liketo get rid of cost..and they said yes. cost is about 100,000 per year but cut it back to 75,000. Gov has cut it back..council...all the advisory boards, did not keep track of exact numbers. other exception was 50000 for instate travel...council is required to have 4 meetings ayear and at least one should be in cheyenne. says we should travel..out to where the stakeholders are..implied in the statute... In 2009 at start of budget cutting, we cut travel because we can...other costs are fixed..by holding the hearings in cheyenne we have transferred the cost from the state ot the individual..two exceptions showed it was imperative that the council was where the land fill or mine were at..unduly burdenson for person to travel. In one case we traveled half way there difficult to find locations with adquate internet service, use video conferencing, one did it from England. Gov indicated he does not want to increase in state travel and cut it. We will do the best we can with what we have 2, 5 asnd 8 % cuts -- have had a docket that has decreased, dcm went to the back burner, upcoming issues have to do with landfills, seeing the increase in our docets. land quality and salt and hazardous waste issues DEQ has issued policies with water permits, pollution discharge permits.....implementing with CBM water discharge permits so I anticipate an increase in the appeals . No need to cut in 100 series which would be acut in person, interesting to operate with two. When we travel no one is in office, we can get by The 2, 5 and 8 means we cut the travel budget, we reduce the number of hearings and try to consolidate them. We have a every other month meeting for 2 days and try to consolidate hearins during those meetings. Most hearings are heard within 6 months which is better than we were.. 3:57:58 ~ 12/6/2011 5:23:15 PM ~ Meier: Flaring of gas wells, is that under your perview? 10 days, 30 days, 60 days, curious about that 3:58:27 ~ 12/6/2011 5:23:45 PM ~ Ruby: not best person because that is being driven by dept of rev and investment in lands because it is a loss of revenue. it is an air quality issue, DEQ must handle that as well, what is in the paper is more of a revenue stream waste. 3:59:18 ~ 12/6/2011 5:24:36 PM ~ Peterson: idea of travel, traveling to Cheyenne is an imposition, how many people attend the hearings and in hearings do you make a site visit and isn't that a disadvantage to those outside of cheyenne? 4:00:09 ~ 12/6/2011 5:25:27 PM ~ Ruby: Statutues do not require a visit to the facility, leave it up to the council, council will try to hold hearing in that location ..scheduling issue for Sheridan landfill, expanson permit and variance, In that matter set the case for May because there are 9 citizen objectors and they are represented by legal council in Cheyenne..less costly if their council did not have to travel. It is a balancing act. air quality control case, more convenient ot have here as people flying into dia, balancing act 4:02:12 ~ 12/6/2011 5:27:30 PM ~ Peterson: avg number of people traveling to cheyenne from outside of area 4:02:27 ~ 12/6/2011 5:27:44 PM ~ Ruby: differs, rule making has higher attendance than contested. At normal contested, DEQ, permit holder, and objectors to permit. z# objecting vaires, it can be 1 or 9. looks like number of people in this room (which is 17) 4:03:34 ~ 12/6/2011 5:28:51 PM ~ Berger: Thanks you.