County council declines immediate approval for actuarial engagement on sheriff—s pension

Vanderburgh County Council members on Nov. 6 refused to approve, at this meeting, an engagement letter that would have hired an actuarial consulting firm to review the sheriff—s pension plan.

Carter Angel, an Indianapolis-based pension consultant, told the council his firm would perform either a technical plan-health review intended to verify the current actuary—s figures or a more comprehensive, costlier analysis offering alternatives to simply funding the actuarially determined contribution (ADC). Angel gave a price range of roughly $10,000 to $20,000 for the engagement; he said a deeper, forensic matching of liability figures could run substantially higher.

Council members said they understood the need to get current with the ADC to avoid state delinquency notifications but were split on whether to authorize the engagement now. One member raised that the council would fund the ADC contribution for 2024 at the meeting, and several members urged a "slow-walk" approach to let commissioners and staff explore alternatives, cash-flow impacts, and longer-term strategies before paying for a full review. An auditor estimate discussed in the meeting suggested defined-contribution obligations could rise materially in 2025.

During the informal voice and roll-call exchange, several council members registered opposition and President Hahn said she would vote no to allow further discussion. A motion to endorse the commissioners— engagement letter failed at the meeting; councilmembers said commissioners will continue to pursue the matter and staff will return with additional options.

Why it matters: The pension discussion ties directly to the county—s fiscal obligations and to the sheriff—s contract-related pay increases. How the council balances annual ADC payments, one-time lump-sum options, or alternative funding strategies will affect county budgets and could determine whether the county remains on a state delinquent list.

Carter Angel, the consultant, said the technical approach would "code up our evaluation software, and try to match the liability figures" to confirm accuracy. He added that if the council—s concern was that the current actuary had erred, a technical match would be appropriate; if the council instead wanted advice on alternatives, a broader analysis would be the right path. President Hahn said the council would consult further with the county commissioners before making a final decision and that commissioners would likely be the signatories on any engagement.

What happens next: Council members directed staff and commissioners to continue discussions. No appropriation for the consultant was approved at this meeting; the topic will return for further consideration.