Yeah, so Council will recall that during the bankruptcy, one of the most controversial things that happened to retirees was a clawback of what was deemed to be excess returns that were paid to annuity savings fund participants. And there was a total at that time of $190 million of what the bankruptcy case deemed to be excess payments so and the argument was that if this money wasn't clawed back from the annuity savings fund participants, then the pension cuts would have had to be greater. That was the argument made during the bankruptcy and so part of the bankruptcy plan of adjustment then did this clawback of the 100 and 90 million, a good portion of it was still in participants account. So if someone was still working for the city and had their money in their annuity savings fund account, they didn't have a choice. The money just got taken out of their account. Then there was an option that if and many participants had transferred their money out to another retirement plan, most typically, although some people cash the money out and used it to maybe help family members or with, you know, one of their financial needs. So the bankruptcy plan of adjustment gave those people a limited time to pay the money back, and if they didn't the amount they didn't pay back was to be deducted from their pension check over their life expectancy. And if they elected a joint form of benefit for themselves and a beneficiary, it was over the joint lifetime of the retiree and their beneficiary. And the most controversial thing that retirees have complained about, you know, through our retiree task force that members der Hall and waters chair is that this amount includes interest at 6.75% which is the assumed rate of return used by the pension fund. So the bankruptcy court said, Well, if you can't pay it back, or choose not to pay it back, we will take this money out of your check, but you have to pay us 6.75% interest. So what this has turned into is a mortgage over a person's lifetime, so not even a 30 year mortgage, a mortgage over their lifetime. And many retirees who who didn't have that great of a pension benefit to begin with, have come to the Pension Board and to city council into the retiree Task Force, saying, Can't you give us some relief? There's still $75 million to be recovered through these deductions from pension checks over the lifetime of the retirees and beneficiaries. So while, while we've been asked, council has been asked, and the retiree Task Force has been asked, is there a limit? The only way to forgive it is the city would have to contribute that 75 million which to the retirement systems, which, of course, would be a very difficult amount to find in in cities budget. So the next best thing that we could offer which retirees are in favor of is reopen that window. So if someone wants to pay off that amount and the amount, not including the entry, they would be able to pay off the remaining principal amount right now that allowed under the plan document, so the retirement systems isn't allowed to do it. If a retiree said, I want to stop the pain, I'm willing to pay off my balance, please let me the retirement system says, well, the plan doesn't allow that. That was a one time election, and that date has passed. So if Council approves this resolution, you are amending the plan to allow the retirement systems to send letters to all the retirees and beneficiaries saying, we have now amended the plan, and we're going to once again allow you to pay off in a lump sum without interest, your remaining principal balance. Gabriel Roeder is the systems actuaries. They would determine that amount, and each retiree would receive a letter, and if they choose not to take the option, they're still in the same place. They'll continue to have the deduction out of their pension check. But this is offering at least something to these retirees that we would give them the option to pay it off, and then, in turn, stop that deduction from their pension checks that they so sorely desire. So Madam Chair, that's the presentation on this.