So, just for the record, um, this is being live streamed. So, can they see us? >> Um, there's two. There's Right now, I don't know how my hand has it set up, but yes, they can. >> Okay. So, we can be seen and be heard. >> Perfect.
>> All right. We'll start with our uh public comments. Vice Mayor, you have anything? All right, on to our new business. We have the experience study decision. >> So that was just uh brought up from uh last meeting.
That's something. >> Sorry. The experience study was uh a followup from last meeting when Doug was here um your plan actuary and uh he explained that we do experience study in general every five years. um it's time we're past the five years and so he pitched it to you last time and
explained it um the relevance of it and why he does it and um it was asked to table it so that you guys could kind of think about it I guess a little bit more. So um he's not here obviously again u but he did want me to bring it up and just get a yes or no. If you do
then we just make a motion and then Doug prepares it. Um, and if not, he just wants me to just let him know the reason and if it's something you're going to consider in the future. So, >> so the experience studies are recommended because they true up the
actuarial evaluation to the assumptions used in the actuarial evaluation to to to what's actually happening on the ground, right? So, um you you make guesses about what you're going to earn. You make guesses about um you know
different things. and how much raises are going to be and then what every five years if he gathers all of the data that happened since the last experience study he can can see you know are these
assumptions correct do we need to tweak them in some way or can we just continue on with those valuations so it's it's good to you know kind of bring the valuation closer and closer to reality >> right so we had two that weren't year
and correct me if I'm wrong, but it was my understanding that we basically had two options. One to keep it the same or we needed to vote to go with the recommendation of lowering the assumed rate of return. >> So part of that was the assumed rate of return, but but you know in the
experience study does more than that. So it used to measure your mortality table, but the state mandates the mortality table, but you will have a mortality table change this year. Um so you look at the um interest rate, you look at salaries, uh you look at retirement
patterns, um you look at the number of disabilities that you've had or in this case not had. Um and so you know he'll look at then the assumptions that he's making in the valuation. Um and and again make recommendations to you about
how to tweak those assumptions to to make them match what's happening on the ground or or come closer to what's happening on the ground. I mean you can't be right but you can be close. So that's what he's asking for is the opportunity to go back. He'll gather the
data since the last time he did an experience study. He'll gather the data of the of the members, how many retirements there have been, um how many how what the raises have been over time. Um and you put that put that into his
tables. Um and then come to you with a recommendation about what to change and how much it costs to make those particular changes. >> Okay. So the presentation that he gave last time, that was not the current experience. That's just that's just
talking to you about the experience study asking for your approval for him to do it. Just >> I see. >> So he just needs a yes or no on whether or not to conduct. >> That's correct. >> That's correct. >> That's correct. >> And of the 18 plans I have, we do this on every one of my plans. So it's every 5 years. One board waited for another
year. Um I think you guys are six or eight months past the regular five months or five years. But um so it's something it's for the board as far as managing this, but it's also for the town and what their contribution rate is later. So wanting to get it as close as we can is going to help both the board
and the town. >> Right. Is there anybody that has any questions or want to make any statements before we make a motion for the experience study? >> It uh the rate of return assumption was that introduced in this
>> be as well. Yes. So he talked about it, but it doesn't sound like he's asking us to make a decision about that, but he he did bring that up as part of it. And so it sounds like there will be some more tweaking. >> Correct. I wouldn't I wouldn't discuss the mortal the uh subjate with you. That
would be a Doug thing, >> right? >> Yep. That's not something I would >> That's why I thought he was going to be here because I thought we had to >> make a vote on that or make a determination on that. So that that discussion would be concurrent with his study, >> right?
>> He would come back and present and at that time is when you would make the determination about the assumption uh rate. So once he brings you back all the numbers, he gives you everything and explains to you and gives you a few options. Usually that's what it is like an A, B or C and the the board will then
vote on which one stay stay the same and for this reason move to this for this reason. So that's what it would be is that the following quarter he would uh be here to present the experience study. So that would be the next meeting, correct? >> I think we tabled it too because the
raises were pending October 1st. We were still discussing the 175185 money. >> We wouldn't have had the I think that was part of it because he everything might have changed or might not have changed it and actually did change. So in order for him to have the
>> So it was the outcome >> discuss the summary page which showed the fund ratio as he was comfortable. 5% assumption they voted you voted to no you
were at the point of making the decision on what your interest rate should be. So 675 um is he's comfortable with um and he asked you all to decide which option you would choose. >> Right. So he did ask us to to do a vote
on whether or not to change the assume rate of return or leave it the same. Uh no. >> Okay. >> And part of the part of the experience study, right? It tells you the dollar impact of any change that you make, whether it's to salary increases, terminations, or the return assumption,
right? So that was part of the discussion was well, let's see what the numbers are as well to make the determination all of those. So is he asking whether we should change
the assumed rate of return or can he change the assumed rate of return for the study and then come at the back end scenarios right it'll say if we change it to 6.5 here's the dollar impact of that >> um and along with all the other assumptions right so that it does it
kind of gives you the impact of any >> changes that he's proposing are potentially you know one you to consider >> right I thought he showed us those changes He did. >> Yeah, he did. >> Hang on, I'm going to pull it up. There was like um there was like five different criteria and then he showed
the if we left it the same what the percentage um difference would be for the town for the U employees and then if we lower the assume rate of return on my server Sorry. Our servers have so much security
on them that trying to connect from an air card is very difficult. Sometimes it's it's over a minute uh when I'm on Wi-Fi. So on a on an air card, it's a little more difficult. Okay. When was the last time he did the
fiveyear review? >> So, he did do the five-year review. So, it was listed here wrong on the on the um the agenda, but he did do it. And so, ultimately, he's just asking you to decide.
>> My bad. Yeah, we did approve, >> right? Because we didn't want to take a vote because not everybody was here. But just all the question should be if the gentlemen that weren't here have they had a chance to review the information because why
would we take a vote on something that everybody hasn't had a chance to review? No. >> So, I would say my suggestion would be we just table this again to the next meeting. >> You can. That's the best idea, I would think. >> Well, >> I could send back out the experience letter to you and um if you didn't get
it for the first time. >> So, Doug should be here, >> right? Doug should be here >> at the next >> for the valuation >> with the valuation, >> right? So >> be able to then discuss the experience
study and applying this either to the >> he's not a fan of changing the one he's already done but or you know changing it going forward. >> So what I'm I'll do is I'm going to check with uh Doug to make sure that his schedule works for the next quarter. Um,
and if the valuation is ready to or if not either way, um, I'll just let him know that the board's requested that now that we have a full hopefully we'll have a full board the next time as well that he can show up and hopefully get this, you know, to where everybody feels comfortable and you guys can make a vote, make a motion.
Did you Tom did you get a chance to see that study from the last one that he had put out with the with >> I I'll send it back out again just so that you >> So do do we need a motion? >> I'm going to make a motion to table it to the next meeting, please.
>> I'll second that motion. >> All right, motion second. All in favor? >> I >> I uh All right. We've got the approval of the minutes from our last quarterly meeting. Uh, do we have a motion to approve the previous minutes? >> I'll make that motion to approve.
>> All right. Second. >> I'll second it. >> All right. All in favor? >> I >> I approved. All right. Moving on to our uh old business. I don't have anything listed here in old business. Anything else we need to discuss from the front there?
All right. Right, moving on to our reports. We've got uh from Mariner Institutional, Mr. Brad Hest, our investment consultant, going over our quarterly report and follow up on the real estate presentation. Yes. Um so I have those two items. I also have um
a global bond manager. We talked about that last uh last meeting. Um so I have some funds that have been vetted by our research team for you to consider there as well. And then also um a small update to our investment policy statement.
Given some state um a statute that was passed in July uh and in con consultation with Bonnie and her team, we think it's prudent to add some language just to continue to protect the board that we're abiding by state law. So I'll get to all of that, but let's
jump into the quarterly report. Uh good report, good close to our fiscal year. If you flip to page three, so if you remember, the first two fiscal quarters were kind of iffy, a little bit negative, and then um the quarter ending
June 30th was really good as we had a tremendous bounce back after the initial rough patch due to the initial tariff announcements in the beginning of April. Um but ended up being a really strong quarter and that that momentum uh continued. So you can see on page three
on the upper right hand side the returns for the various market indices for the quarter. S&P 500 up 8% which is a very strong quarterly result. uh you can see within domestic there's very much a risk on and a lot of people are describing it
as a momentum kind of speculative market that has happened last quarter and part of the way that you can see that is the the big outperformance of the Russell 2000 that's small company stock index up over 12%. Um we saw international stocks
do another decent result up about 7% for the all country world XUS in in the darker orange and that's led by you can see the emerging markets again the kind of riskier area up over 10% almost 11% in the quarter and then rates came down
a bit and you had a positive result for your bonds and then we'll get to another kind of 1%ish return for the real estate funds so everything kind of was working um other than you you know, we'll get into it. You know, a little bit of active management underperformance in our growth manager given some of the
stocks that you know or were underweight. So, um the big news in the quarter was, you know, in September the Federal Reserve cut interest rates by 0.25%, kind of signaled they're going to do two more. They meet tomorrow. We'll see if it continues. There's a little
bit of um I guess um speculation about you know with the federal government shutting down while we got a CPI number last week a lot of that data hasn't been coming for the last month or so. So uh but
still the markets are kind of expecting them to cut by 0.25% uh tomorrow. um you know we have and the reason why they're cutting rates is you know inflation seems to be under control but although not at their target their
stated target I'll say of 2% um we are starting to see weakness in the labor economy with with unemployment going up you're seeing you know new job creation declines revisions to data that that came out as well that were negative
so it seems like we're starting to to kind of have some weakness although at 4.3% unemployment still very low historically but if you remember we were like down lower than three and a half%. So um I think that's kind of the the balance of risks is what the Federal
Reserve talks about being more on the uh employment side versus the inflation side. Um, and you know, we just got the the the inflation number last week, and while it's at 3%, it was actually better than expected. Um, as we're still seeing
some impacts, although more muted than a lot of people probably anticipate for the tariffs, right? You have some price impact of that, but it seems to be kind of, you know, pretty much right um not impacting general price levels right now as much as I think many people would
expect. So that's why the market's kind of betting that the Federal Reserve will continue to cut rates and we'll have another cut tomorrow. Um, you know, corporate profitability, you know, we're pretty well into earning season. Um, I say generally speaking,
it's it's it's doing good. Companies are are um reporting good earnings. The banks all reported earnings. You know, one of the things I was kind of looking on the lookout for there is kind of signs of weakness in consumer behavior and are
they starting to increase the reserves for loan losses and things of that nature. And it doesn't seem like the large banks are really they're kind of saying everything's pretty good. They're not doing meaningful step ups in their loan res uh reserves um and and write
downs etc. So um but you know you can see you know one-year performance on the lower right hand side of almost 18% that's you know um if you think about 2024 20 plus percent return for the S&P 500
2023 20 plus percent valuations we talked about this last quarter right valuations extended um you know what the the kind of price earnings multiple of the S&P 500 what Wall Street expects is is is very high relative to historical
levels. Um and it's making you know a lot of people there's a lot of ink being spilled on how you know we're in an extended valuation perspective uh for the for the S&P 500. Um you know people are throwing around words like bubbles. It doesn't seem bubbish to me. Um the
the earnings are still coming in that it looks like the S&P's on track for double digits growth this year which is very very strong. um you know the the Nvidias and the Teslas of the world absolutely kind of the valuations are are are very very high but those companies you know
particularly Nvidia is is just growing like gang busters right same thing with Microsoft you know trillion dollar companies to be posting you know you know teams uh types of of of earnings growth is pretty pretty remarkable um
you flip the page page page 10 you can see that's the the treasury yield curve so what for each maturity what the uh the interest rates are so you can see the the red line is where we started the year it's 1231 so we've
had a meaningful decline in interest rates particularly on you know the tenure there where the tenure went from four and a half a little bit above four and a half 4.6 6 to now, you know, I know it broke below four. I'm not sure where where it's at exactly today, but we're at the 4-ish% mark right now. So,
we've had a pretty significant decline in interest rates, which has helped fix income. Any questions on kind of broadly speaking, what happened in the quarter for markets or the economy? Uh page 13 shows you the um kind of
longer term view of the pension. That blue line is the market value. The the gray is the net cash flow is just kind of what's in versus, you know, coming in versus going out. So you can see obviously um 21 point almost $2
million all-time high for the pension um which is great in spite of kind of pretty significant net cash outflows over the last five years. U in terms of page 14 shows you the side by side of June 30th to September 30th. So we went
from 19.9 million to 21.2. So, and really nice quarter of gains. That's in spite of us actually doing a rebalance after last quarter. If you remember, we cut back our equities a bit and and put that in fixed income trying to be kind of risk aware. Um uh so you
can see our equities actually went down from 66 to just shy of 65%. Page 17 shows you the what those numbers the asset allocation numbers look relative to our IPS targets. So you know we're within our policy
limits for everything continue to be overweight domestic equity at 65% versus that 60% target and then a little bit underweight our non-core fixed income and our our real estate. Um, you know, when we go through everything, we kind of, you know, talk about the global bonds, uh, as well as
the real estate. I'm not going to make a rebalance recommendation now. I I'll save it to see if we want to do anything with the global bonds, and then I'll make a recommendation on on where we could put money, if we want to to invest in those. Page 18 shows you all the activity in
the pension during the quarter. So you can see 19.9 to start. The net transfer shows you that rebalance where we sold some of our Fidelity 500 index fund and put it into the Manning Pure Fix. We had uh 455,000 and some change
in contributions come into the pension. We paid out 271 in benefits during the period, management fees of 21.85, 85 other expenses of just shy of 14,000. Done a
great quarter from a gain perspective, just over 138,000 in dividends and income and and 925 926,000 of capital gains. So that got us to that 216 million mark. fiscal year to date shows you, you know,
we even though we're overweight, we've kind of uh equities. We did do some meaningful rebalances during the fiscal year. You can see on page 19, you know, we red actually reduced our equity by about $1.3 million
during the uh during the fiscal year. You most of that was to fund receipts and dispersements, you know, outflows that we had. Um um uh but we also added a little bit to fixed income last quarter as you can see. Um highlight
that. And then returns good quarter page 20 net of fees 5.3% for the quarter. Fiscal year to date we got about 12%. Um so that compares very favorably relative to our return assumption. Um glad to see
that you know long-term results well above that return assumption. So that's good. um still have some work to do relative to our policy index, although we did got a small win for the last for the fiscal year. Um you know, given some of the changes we made over the last year, I think they're coming to fruition
and starting to to impact the results. So that's it's really good to see. Um you can see the managers for the quarter. So our Russell index, Russell value index that would you would expect. Then I talked about the MFS growth. You know, the index was up 10 and a half and
it was only up five and a half. Um biggest things there doesn't own Tesla uh which was about 1% relative to the index. Um and it's underweight Google. It's underweight Apple. So Apple was up 24%.
They only own about 6%. It's about 12% of the index. And then they're overweight Amazon which was flat for the quarter. So some of these all these kind of relative value decisions that they're making kind of worked against them. Um you know um so you know they you can see
where they rank relative to that pure universe a little bit below average since we added them. You know the index has been so hard you can see the index since inception 16% ranked six. So 94% of active funds have underperformed the index during that time at least the Russell. Now we've talked about some of
the issues with that index too. You know it's very very concentrated. 60% of uh I think the the index of 50% is in the top five or six names um very very concentrated um
structurally I like having most of our money in the index but having some in active we don't even have four chances really to make decisions throughout the year right having some money into a manager that can be a little bit more tactical and take advantage of shorter term market opportunities for a little
bit of our money I think makes sense. Um but at the end of the day it's hard to to to keep justifying active management fees when they underperform. So I wanted to bring it up see if you all had any thoughts on that. Um you know we've obviously made a big change to just kind
of move into passive lowcost index funds over the last three years. Um, like I said, structurally I like having some of that, but it is, you know, if you, you know, if I would bet my life on it, it's it's hard to keep justifying active management, uh, particularly the,
you know, paying fees when you keep underperforming. Now, there's a lot of things that are going on under the table that that, you know, you know, within, you know, we talked about the extended valuations. It's it's hard to time these things. Um um so you know I wish I had a
more definitive answer like yeah you definitely should fire them but I think there's some mitigating circumstances that that that that gives me pause to make that recommendation to you all if that makes sense. >> Any thoughts Tom? Um, we have like I'm just
numbers. I think it's like quarter. We have a quarter in active right now. Or no, we have we only have a quarter in. We have a quarter le index. Am I right? We got 13.7 in equity.
>> Yes. And we have 11 million that's indexed. >> Nine about nine and some change in the S&P 500 and about 2 million in the >> So was that like 80%? We we did this we made this decision in like two weeks not the past 15%
will be 1.3 probably like a quarter right >> I mean it's kind of distressing because we had you know Tro just shows you how hard it is because we had Tro I think they had really good year you know we
got rid of them because MFS was doing was doing well and now MFS is screwing up all their allocations. So you kind of stay with the winner. That's why indexing works, >> right? >> You don't have to blame yourself for
picking the wrong guy. >> I just looked at their allocation of September. Looks like they must have increase their Nvidia 14% Nvidia
growth. Microsoft big Amazon I mean what what are they saying Google by the way is just kind of come on fire ever since the DOJ decision >> so >> so I haven't I haven't um gotten their quarterly commentary yet um and I don't
think our our our team our research team has done a quarterly call with them um last I heard I don't think I think the increase in weight for Nvidia. I don't think they're buying Nvidia. I think it's market value. Yeah. Appreciation puh
based upon that. I mean that the one big thing that just hampered them for the last five years. They haven't owned Tesla the entire time, right? So that's you know that hurt that it's a very volatile stock as you as you know right in the quart in negative quarters they look good because that tends to go down
40% in the blink of an eye and then you get these periods where it doubles in you know six months it's just a very very volatile stock right so that that's a big one that that they've missed out on um
>> is our does the MFS the R six does that have a minimum that a Y share that >> so the R six so it might have a stated minimum but but because of our relationship it doesn't really apply um we we just ask for an exemption and
given our firm's relationship and the size of assets that we have we generally get them for the you know particularly for our public funds so that that R six for people that don't know that's typically in a a defined contribution uh it's a share class for defined
contribution plans but we get access to it for our our you know our pension funds because of you basically ask and they most firms will give uh you know let us get into that fund for our clients because you get a small change
savings versus the institutional share class >> was a little frustrating to see that they're basically market but they're doing pretty. I mean that you look at absolute return. >> Yeah. >> You you know you're getting something.
You're gaining something. >> Yep. >> So that that's one way. I mean that's kind of how I look at it. Plus you've got flexibility. Plus you've got for a year you're you know 18 and a half and 17. So I mean it comes to work.
>> Yeah. For the fiscal year you know for trailing one year. Right. >> Yeah. So I mean it's >> I would just revisit this come back next quarter two or three quarters. >> Yeah.
>> I think that's fair. >> Do we have any uh funds in a passive index for the growth or is it all just in the managed >> right now? So it kind of depends on how you view the the the S&P 500. Now I would argue that it's a kind of a growth
index, right? It's 35% is in those, you know, growth names that but like for the actual growth index, it's like 50 or 60% in those names, right? So um so so to answer your question, we don't have any of our uh
dedicated growth assets index right now. It's all in the Fidelity 500. Um so that is that is an option. We there's just like there's a Vanguard Russell 1000 value index fund, there's a Vanguard Russell 1000 growth index fund
that we could also use if we wanted to. But I I'll note, you know, it's we talk about it every quarter, but continue. >> The numbers look good though. [Applause] Page 21, just for the record, you see total fixed income, he got a small win
versus our fixed income policy index, 13 basis points. So for the one year, a little bit under, but you know, nothing really to to kind of write home about. uh Matt appear kind of you know we're in a kind of conservative approach there it's paid to
take credit risk which you can see for the one year for our non-core fixed income right the floating rate funds are both up sevenish% versus our core bonds were up three three and a half and then you can see what the returns on for the real estate funds on page 22 so
each of them were up about 1% again so it's kind of the same thing that we talked about last quarter and the quarter before last three quarters. We've gotten about 1% each of those quarters after that eight quarter downturn. And the way that the returns are being generated, it's entirely
generated by income. So the the capital appreciation part is very very flat still um for the overall kind of commercial real estate market and you're kind of just clipping that that 1% per quarter coupon that is being generated off of those funds.
>> Mr. Mr. Chairman. >> Sure. >> Can I just ask a quick question on page 22? It shows that the NC index was exactly zero. >> Does that mean we did have the number? >> That's right. So, it's too early in the
quarter to have the index number calculated. It was so we got the statements from the managers, but you got to wait for like 29 other funds to calculate that. So, that'll that'll change. Okay. >> Yes. But it's carried at zero right now. Yes.
>> Any other questions about the quarterly report? >> Nice number to put in the books. >> We're comfortable with the allocation. If I wasn't here at the last meeting reallocate equity assets income
>> we did so we did a 2% reduction >> and put that money into the man because yeah we were at 66 that time of the meeting we were probably closer to 67%. And >> I always view kind of the 5% plus or
minus as kind of the once I get over 5% overweight, it's like, okay, let's let's start talking about it. Um, so yeah, so we did that. Um, but you know, if we do some global bonds, I think using some of the, you know, equity to fund that could make
sense. Um, we can have that discussion if you guys want to do that. But yeah, the last three fiscal years have been, you know, really good. Uh what we had we're 10.3 for 2023, 22.5 for 2024, and then 12%
for this year after that tough one in 2022, which was >> Yeah. >> All right. Um so let's next go uh you know follow up on the real estate. Um so you had asked me I I have a performance
analysis historical analysis of performance and risk characteristics of the fidelity and the Vanguard uh REIT index. So to remind you, right, we had this kind of, you know, we had a very good presentation by the vice mayor um
about um you know, REITs um versus what we have, which is private real estate funds um you know, I do have copies of that presentation if you want to reference. >> Thank you.
What's that? >> Yeah, I got one. So kind of if I and I don't I'd be happy to have I would love for your comments but the highlights just to remind everyone breeds benefits are lower fees more liquidity
versus locking up money and you know we talked about it right two and a half years ago we asked for $150,000 from each of those managers. It took us forever to get that money out in a bad market, right? We we we asked for it right at the height of the market when
it was the only thing positive in the pension and we got overallocated and then the market turned and you know they have the ability to basically limit redemptions in those funds to protect parent investors, right? Um but you know it certainly limits the liquidity that
that you have. Um the the positives and we'll get into this in in the performance report is the the volatility of private funds are much less than publicly traded REITs. And I think I, you know, I mentioned last quarter to the board from from my perspective, you
know, um I think private real estate for an institutional investor that has access to these funds, you know, ultimately the long-term results are going to be similar to a RE fund, but you're going to get a benefit from diversification relative to to stocks
and bonds as well as limited vol limited volatility. So from a risk risk adjusted perspective, your returns are much more attractive than than REITs. Although in short periods of times, REITs because they're tied to to to equity markets can can do much better or much worse, right?
So that's that's why they're they're a lot more volatile. Um, so I kind of view REITs as a sector fund, an equity sector fund, because you're getting the equity risk of equities, but you're kind of
beholding to the the fundamentals of of real estate. Um, so from my perspective, what my recommendation would be either we continue with private real estate or we get out of real estate altogether and put those monies into our equity bucket
because I would rather have a more diversified exposure than just have a REIT sector fund when I'm getting the risk of equities but not necessarily the long-term returns. So that that would be my my perspective on on how I would view this. So you all asked me to compare
what the returns and the risk of REIT index funds to our two managers. So that's what's in this uh this handout that you see here. It says uh US REIT manager analysis on the front. I I think the I think you're hitting on
it. The question that I would raise the rhythm of what you're saying is that um should we I mean if you if you look at the uh just take BNQ the Vanguard Real Estate Fund over the last five years as
of October is about a 7 and a half% annualized yield annualized return total return S&P was 15 to 16%. So the question really is or the question that one of the questions that I think is not so much do you want to go to reund
but do you want to just forget about it and go to some other equity oriented piece um and just sort of go we don't really have real estate exposure because it's very you know it's
very all all these all the um these big funds which and I have no problem with them at all. You know, they basically take the biggest capitalized, you know, the prologics and all these guys and that's where they pile into. And so you're just just amplifying sort of a
sector bet just like you might make with technology or health care or financials. That's kind of what you're doing. So you might just think, well, maybe I want a more diversified look of something.
Maybe it's, you know, maybe it's global bonds. May, you know, so it's I'm just raising the question as to how think about it. >> I mean, >> and you know, >> from my perspective, right? So, I think real estate makes sense for a pension. >> Um, because the, you know, let's use
2022 as it's actually a very good instructive period. So, stocks are down 20 plus%, bonds are down 10%. And real estate was positive, private real estate was positive 20% that year. Although REITs were down significantly because
they are correlated with equities, right? So private real estate the actual and if you looked at the fundamentals of real estate in that year um we didn't see like you know um so
office space was struggling a bit but it didn't start to really roll over until 2023 2024 and and and earlier this year. Um but like in industrial real estate was doing fantastic in 2022. So the economic fundamentals of real estate
were more captured in private real estate funds than in REITs which were down because everything was negative in the stock market. Does that does that make sense? >> May I respond to some of >> Sure. >> Brad says that the volatility of RES is
higher than the volatility private funds. He's absolutely correct. However, that stability is a false stability. If you go if you go to my page, uh let's see go to unfortunately we have we have we
have two people out of the five were not here. Go to page six. So stocks you if you look at how you value assets, they come in three categories. Level one would be a stock if you see
quoted Apple any any second get quote. Uh level two might be a uh sorry thought my math was big enough. Uh the answer >> I understood that might be a a Ford bond
that trades all the time and then you it's a 10-year bond. You price a nine-year Ford against it. So that's level two. Level three is where frankly you're making a guess using a model. So if you flip to the next page, you know, I point out real estate assets are hard
value. They're they tend to be unique assets. It's very difficult. You drive down the road down I95. You had all these storage warehouses put put up. They're they're all kind of different. You got to look at the location relative to one that might be in Okachobee and things like that. So use use three
methods of valuation. can use a sales comparison. Well, what happened during the period when the real estate market froze up? There were no sales. So, you didn't have a comparison. It's not like a residential property household down the street from your house. You can
probably figure out pretty quick what it is. The second one you can use is income. Okay. So, how much income does this thing generate? There's difficult to come up with visibility between different properties there as to what's generating income. Final one is replacement costs. That's
sort sort of a guess. So what happens is they have to use a pricing service is making guesses and I think when you saw that when the private funds were really outperforming the re fund these guys weren't marking
the things uh properly. This the like the commercial market in New York was going to hell in a hand basket. Nobody was coming in. and they weren't knocking the prices down. And the reality is if you go to page eight that uh if the pricing service is too aggressive in
lowering valuations, they risk losing the service contracts. The investment manager goes out and gets the pricing service. It's the same way it works in bond well bonds and well equities. You have quoted markets. If you keep beating
the the price down on it, the asset manager is going to lose fees because lower asset prices will lower assets under manage lower management fees. So you have a combination of different things going on. The re the RE prices which I point out on the next page when
the market is transitioning from an overbought to over oversold situation or vice versa. Brad is absolutely correct. They get very volatile. the the issue is more that your private
fund is not being priced properly. If you look all the all the recent discussions about private equity funds because the Trump administration is going to allow uh individual investors to get involved in through their retirement plans. What's being pointed out left and right is the same problems
there on private equity. you can't figure out what the value of those small companies are until you finally bring them to market and so forth. So you run into that same thing. So what I did on page uh 11 was because you do have all
this volatility go it's really difficult to look at these private funds versus a read equity uh in a six-month period or a one-year year period. So I went back over time and from 2019 to 2025,
what should be a long enough period for this volatility to settle out between the way the pricing services prices the assets and the real estate funds or the volatility in the REIT funds because they're they're very diversified. That should that should kind of balance out
over over time. And the reality is the cumulative compounded difference between these two were 1, two, three, four, five, six, six and a half years. The private funds got their butts kicked versus versus the RE fund. So you you
you own the private funds. What what what do you get for them? Well, flip the page 12. Rate of returns over the six and a half year period were much inferior to the Vanguard refund. Fidelity refund had very return. Liquidity is abysmal on
these things. It's like the roach motel. You can come in, you can never get out. It is 253 right now. Say you guys, this meeting went a long time. You were discussing your real estate exposure got down to 355 and you said, "You know
what? We want to get out of every dollar worth of real estate. We think it's peaked." You get on the internet. You go to Vanguard, Fidelity, or anybody else's website. You type in an order, you get a four o'clock price. You can't do it with these. They won't let you go.
But for all for the inferior returns, poor liquidity for that, you get to pay 110 basis points versus the REIT fund at 13 basis points. And you don't even know where where the thing is uh priced. It's only
available quarterly. I mean, if these funds were so great where you're giving up this liquidity and you're paying high management fees, it should be the other way around. The the private funds over a long period of time by using their management skills versus uh all these
REITs should be having better performance, not less. In my mind, it doesn't make you know keeping the real estate exposure or not, that's not a decision I'm going to opine. But you know, my my recommendations were at the last meeting for the two gentlemen that
were here on page 13 is if you're going to put real estate exposure in the future, keep it in keep it in a refund. And you know, in terms of the volatility and so forth, you're in for a long haul anyway. So you're really looking at a
return. So, you know, un unless you decide because that volatility you want to get out. But if you want to get out, you want to be in the refund because of what I just told you. You just you you know, you you could sit there at the computer and bang, you're gone. So, and
you know, my second point was if liquidity opens up and you want to keep in the re in the uh have real estate exposure, put it in the in the refunds. Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. >> I'll just so so just just let you know I
think there's a bit of a sample bias, right? So, um the six years that are presented. So, we do a little bit longer here. So, we we go back 10 years so you can see what the the numbers look over a longer period because I agree you should look at this over a longer period with
>> So, so I'm looking at um page 15 of your presentation and I think Um this is an important page to your point about long term. Um and I think six I think six years is an appropriate
time but you know that's marked by you know the world really changed in 2020 and uh you know with co and work from home trends and also the technology enablement and corporations allowing you know employees to work from home for
three five days a week etc. So we we We've had a lot of changes in the real estate market, particularly in the commercial, you know, office building uh and metropolitan markets. um this page just for the for the board's purpose. If we look at the bottom section of that
the 15 or 10y year time period um you're going to see a bunch of you know mumbly peg you know statistics but but these are statistics that um I think it's a little confusing because we tend to think in terms of absolute return so
what did what did that investment return um Brad tends to think in terms of this concept called risk adjusted rates of return which basically takes the excess return the concept of the excess return over a benchmark and then it adjusts it for the volatility of of that return
over you know quarters or months or whatever and that's the kind that's this concept called standard the standard deviation or the variability of the return around the average and it's it's kind of gobbledygook right I think the
um the trade-off for this plan is, you know, very importantly, you know, and I wasn't I don't think I was here yet when you guys did first real estate investments, but but um you know, the the idea there was we were in a very low interest rate environment at that time
had persisted, you know, since about what 2013, >> right? So our first investment was 2017 in these private >> Yeah. So we could you couldn't get any yield for like a 10 year 10 year treasury in late 21 I think or mid 21
was like 50 basis points so before that started to tighten. So I think the board was trying to get some some current return and at that time you know the the start the history of these private funds was decent generating some yield. Okay then but then you got caught this trap.
So I look at real estate not as an equity first of all that that's why it's in the plan it was an alternative to fixed income >> right >> investments which were which were not generating any return there was no yield and rates weren't going down if anything rates were going to go up so you were
asking to lose money in terms of total return market return the um what these statistics show me here is if I just look at the return the actual return over that 10year annualized period Brad is that you know it's kind of like
um you know you got apples and oranges but they're doing the same thing. They're generating the same rate kind of absolutely >> I agree. Yeah. >> Okay. The and excess returns are kind of unremarkable as well and I think to
you know our prior preser point there that you know in the far right the z probably means it was unavailable for some reason. that return the >> no so so the the index that we're using here is the private real estate it's a
nre is the benchmark here so that's why zero there for excess return but >> but you know so so when when Brad's talking about volatility he's he's looking at the next line which is called the standard deviation and that that is that is that basically you
know twothirds of the time that means that the down that average. One way I think about this is if I look at that return in that first column being 4.75%. Twothirds of the time the return is either plus you know four 4.75% plus 18%
or minus 18. So it's it's bouncing around a lot but um but then when you measure there are these other measures that we use in the business u like sharp ratios and um information ratios and
what they basically measure is was did you get rewarded okay for the risk that you took okay in your investment and this is all about the variability in the mark to market you know every time we come and look at the numbers you know, you feel bad if
it's down for three years, but you know, three years down the road, you could have positive volatility. So, the the point being that I don't think um in looking at these numbers, which is a long period of time, I don't think that the the excess returns or the risk
adjusted returns in terms of the sharp ratios and the information ratios relative to the um to the REIT funds is that remarkable, you know, so though the risk adjusted returns you know might look better for
the private equity than you know what you give up in terms of tactical ability in terms of liquidity is I think you're giving up a lot I think you know we had the door >> I got it depends on like when it's a little it is wonky right but you have
double the risk adjusted returns right you go >> well yeah we're talking >> 2 to.5 >> but we're talking about marginal >> yeah yeah but that That's that's that's the nature of the calculation. But yeah, at the end of the day, >> so if we look at we can see that you
know the image of that on page >> page three. >> No, it's actually on page uh 12 is it page 12? Yeah, page 12. Yeah. And you can see the in these bar charts here you can see the uh so I
circled you can see that the information ratios are higher. Okay so this is 10 years and these are these same statistics. Um and you can see over here on the far left like this p page 12 page 12 you can
see that the standard deviation or the the actual like what this is probably quarterly volatilities or something or monthly >> quarterly >> yeah so you can see like it's very high for the rats right um and it's much lower for private equity and to the
point like that's you don't really ever get a mark to market because you don't get appraisal prices and it's it's kind of Well, you know, >> I I do want to make a caveat. So, we can argue whether or not there's a like I agree with some of what you said, but
the mechanism unless we're in a period where nothing is going on, which happened during COVID and then probably at periods of 2023 when they are are marking to to model a bit because the transactions aren't there. when transactions are there the pricing service is going out and looking at the
prices of similar buildings h in that market in that meth whatever whether it's Boston whether it's it's Miami whatever it is and using that along with you know other methodologies to come up so it I I don't think it you know the
very pessimistic view is that they're just kind of making this up I think that might have been some verbage I I I think there's a big methodology that that that you know at certain times You got to do what you you can to to come up with a value. If there's no sales in a market, well then they have to have, you know,
the other three or the other two areas. But number one would be comparable sales of of buildings to come up with the value like price per square feet all you know whatever they they come up with the managers will be better versed to tell you exactly how that that >> I just feel like at the end of the day
if I'm looking at 10ear time period and these aren't rolling time periods that's right this is just >> we know we've had a lot of bias in the last five years >> but I think it's hard to justify the lack of liquidity and tactical
ility and the door shut your face. >> Yeah. I mean certainly >> can we at least not reinvest the dividend >> from my from my perspective right it's like okay if you want to have this if I'm going to get the same return well I want half the risk so why why would I go
into just for we don't need that seven 8 10% liquidity we have 90% of our fund that we can get tomorrow so we have some ability to take liquidity risk >> so that requires a very long-term term commitment to real estate.
>> Yeah, >> that's and that means basically we close our eyes for 5 to 10 years and I think that's hard for a public, you know, board of trustees. >> No, I get that. It is hard. It is hard. >> I mean, you had that situation where the
private funds had this crazy return. I remember discussing this in the town council meeting. There are 40 percentage points. Everybody tried to get out and they and they and and they couldn't get out. >> Did that tell somebody at the at the
pricing service that maybe you have these marks way the hell off? >> Yeah, I slam the gate. >> Just for the record, I think I think the year you're talking about is 2021 where the private funds were up 20% those years.
>> Well, I I I looked at >> the read index were up 40% that year. Um and then the next year 2022 the REST were down 26 and the private funds were up about high single digits. kind of. So I also think you got to
bring this back to real estate versus you know investing bonds, >> right? Yeah. Yeah. >> Because because definitely if we buy we I mean I don't know what the re real estate is in the REITs used to be kind
of an independent sector. Now they are part uh in the S&P and the benchmark classifications they are they are now a sector inside the market. So when we we own the S&P 500 benchmark here in our
index and two two and a half% of that I think it's sector weight. >> Yeah something >> probably two and a half to 3% of that of our S&P 500 you know index fund is actually REITs. So that is definitely a differentiating factor that's brought to
bear. So we would in effect be adding to our equity exposure because all those rates are in in the S&P general the broad market. >> So it's complicated.
>> Yeah. Yeah. And we get a little bit of exposure through the Russell 1000 value ETF. It's actually going to be a a little bit larger percent there too. But yeah, your point is yes, >> I guess from my perspective, right? It comes down to
>> what I said earlier, right? We're going into a refund gives you the risk that we already have. That's our major risk in the pension. You get a different risk here with the private fund. So, if we're going to I don't think make I don't think making a sector bet on on on real
estate equities adds anything other than risk where I'm not getting compensated for it with total equity returns. Um, so that's that's the math that goes on in my head, right? It's like, okay, um, I get all the all
the issues that you have with private real estate are there. Um, and while I think a pension has is has the appetite and the the capacity, particularly for the when we're talking about less than 10% of the pension for those liquidity
kind of issues, if if the board has a position that it does hamper us that much, I would not recommend that we go into REITs. I would recommend that we either go into more equities or more fixed income because you get the benefits of the liquidity and you're not handcuffing yourself with the
>> sector compensated for that. That's the question and that's another good very >> all the returns are netted fees here between liquidity and the fees those are two big you know anchors
>> that help that help that prevent your >> and and Brad is there a kicker on the on these funds that if they exceed a certain return based off of the benchmark. Yes. That we have to pay more >> for intercontinental not for principal >> for for
>> Yeah. So and we we we round up the fee their their fee is the management fee is lower. So if you see but then they get they get 10% above 8% preferred. It's it's kind of convoluted. If you remember we actually got a >> our our our net fee was higher than our
gross fee because we got a rebate. uh because they didn't hit their their mark after they got the incentive fee. But anyway, that is correct. Uh Vice Mayor for Intercontinental, they get an incentive fee for that fund. >> But if we're if we're just interested, let's just say about risk adjustment, we're an absolute term. It looks like
over the last 10 years, there's not there's virtually no. >> Yeah, you got a little bit of a premium for the Vanguard one, but otherwise, I mean, you're in within a point last page in terms of the absolute, >> right? If you looked at the 10 year for the S&P 500 during that time period, right, you would have gotten double
digit 12% annualized over that time, >> right? But we're looking at this as a as a divers diversifying, you know, absolute term. >> You're looking at uncorrelated something uncorrelated perhaps to >> right and that's my that's my point of going into a refund, you're getting
you're not getting the diversification benefits, you're getting the risks of equities. So, it's hard even with that being said, >> getting my head around, >> why would we be in a RE fund that's 110 basis points versus 13 then
>> because you get less volatility and you get more diversification benefits for the the funds that we're in, right? 20 again 2022 stocks and bonds are both negative double digits and it was a positive return real estate market which we experienced and helped lessen our the
impact of our >> I mean in one way the underlying assets are the same assets right one one is just securitized or equitized let's say as liquidity but >> and it's more diversified
>> right but and more diversified but I mean for all I mean you can take you know strip mall. The strip mall, you can own it in a private equity vehicle, okay? A medical, you know, medical offices or something like that or it could be in an ETF. It could be
securitized, right? Equity. Now, the equity gets is getting the underlying asset value may not be changing. I mean, these things could be like, you know, a duplex, right? half half public and half private. But but you know the investors
can vote with their feet you know every hour every minute on the on the the liquid one the re part of that. So but the that so the price gets adjusted you know is varying based you know on the daily movements of
the market interest rates and everything else but the the private one is just not changing. So that's kind of the way I think about it. So I think again it comes back to if you're willing to hold for a long period of time, you're
probably going to get you're going to get more volatility definitely with a REIT with public REITs, but you're going to have liquidity and lower fees. Um but you're going to basically end up in the same place, you know, over rolling 10ear time periods or something like that. But
that requires you to be so you know >> so so so why I think I asked this question a couple meetings ago why did we get into the real estate to begin with was because we want to have a diverse portfolio right >> yeah so so he explain it right at the
time of 2017 interest rates were very very low >> this was a yield this is an asset that that has a current income component right if you think about your expected returns for private real estate you're thinking over a long period of time you should get 6 to 7%. And four to 5% of
that should come from income. So it's similar, you know, actually, you know, you have more of a capital appreciation component than bonds, but much much different than equities where if you think you're getting 10, you might get two from income and eight from capital appreciation. So that was the the
thought is that you get an income generating asset that's an alternative fixed income that's not making any money for you. It also provides inflation protection like we saw in 2022. 2022 if you remember inflation was 9% in the economy which is why stocks and bonds were both negative that year as interest
rates went up significantly and real estate was positive. And then you also um you know get a diversification benefit in that historically over the last 50 years real estate does not act like stocks and it does not act like bonds. So from a total portfolio perspective, it helps smooth out your
your ride and your volatility because it kind of zigs when the other things zag. Does that make sense? >> Yeah. But why why do we need to keep it in real estate then? Why can't we move to something else there? I say like why don't we put >> you guys do any triple net lease deals?
I mean I'm I'm in person investing one >> and I mean they're very attractive because they're basically just you just did an income stream. >> I think there might be 9% And I think that that's kind of almost more vehicle that would be more palatable for this.
>> Well, so the the only fund that I know of that we have available would be a private equity real estate fund which is even more um restrictive than what we have right here. We at least in a normal environment you get quarterly liquidity. So, this is a true private equity
structure where you would invest in and I don't know if it's still opens for for they might have raised the capital, but the one that I'm thinking of, it's one where, you know, it's a 12-year life fund. You put money in, they go out and do deals, and then you get the money out. You know, you're you're locked up for for over a decade.
>> Well, how much of the I forget how much of the portfolio does this represent real estate? 8% 9%? >> Yeah, we have about 7%. >> 7%. Why don't we just do something different with it if that's what we're looking to play with? I mean what about what about cryptocurrency? >> Yeah. No, I wouldn't recommend
cryptocurrency. I don't think it's very very volatile. >> Why there? >> Yeah. So you're talking >> this is volatile tool, isn't it? >> No, not not not like not like crypto. >> Crypto has 50% draw downs in 3 months and it's happened multiple times. >> I'm just throwing it out there. I mean there's a lot of uh government bodies
and people that are going to it that the president seems to very be pro that. But that's not a decision we can make now anyway because there's no liquidity in the real estate, right? >> So I mean this >> you absolutely can make a decision. You can say, "Hey, we want to redeem all of
our money and we're getting more money than we did two years ago." Okay. So Intercontinental, they were giving us 2% per quarter for a while, then it bumped up to five. Last quarter, they gave us 10% of what we had outstanding. So things are but it's >> the point is that we could park it again
or we could do something different with it rather than leave it in a refund if that's what we wanted to do >> to to the vice mayor's point right you put you put the redemption in and then it takes a while to get we're still waiting to get we we only asked for 20% of I don't even know if it was that
much. So we asked for 150,000 from each of them. We had over a million dollars invested at the time in in each of those funds >> and we're still waiting >> and we're one of them we got all of our money. So principal paid us out all of that, but we're still, you know, we've only gotten maybe about half to 60% of
what we asked for two and a half years ago from Intercontinental. So if we >> Well, is this a nor is this a normal real estate market? Because if it is, why don't we have our money? >> No, >> no, it's not. >> It's not. I mean, there there it changes
every day. >> We had three bad real estate markets, right? the early 90s when the savings and loans crisis happened. You had the financial crisis of 2008 to 2010ish. Um, and then you have this time period
environment. Yeah, it's not. >> I mean, I would kind of lean in here to, you know, we haven't been happy with these for a long time, which is always a dangerous sign, right? You're getting out right before the turn. But I don't
really think there is a turn. I think the question was asked like why do we ever do these things and I think you know part of that decision was probably looking back in retrospect at the historical returns of of real estate which have been good to long-term
investors. I don't think anybody anticipated, you know, COVID and nobody anticipated the way that people would work, you know, in the gig economy or whatever we would call it, you know, in modern times. I mean, you know, my kids like work from home 3 days a week and
um, you know, out in Denver. I mean, and they they're literally like a mile away from their offices. I mean, it's that's the way, you know, people work these days in tech industries and whatever. So, and that's a big headwind I think uh ongoing to anything other than class A
real estate which is you know new stuff. Um I I guess my my suggestion would be that we cuz this has been going on for like you know this is the third meeting I think that we kind of come up with a compromise and we ask for more money back and uh you know even if we bought
you know you know if we put the money in T bills for a period of time until we decide what to do you know we could put some into REITs you know um and and continue to look and consider you know alternative you know again this
kind to me comes back to this was an alternative to fix to fixed income. Now large institutional plans have large commitments to illquid assets like real estate, venture capital, private equity, but I don't consider I mean $21 million >> $21 million is not a large but it's not
a large pension. It's not the Florida pension plan. >> Half a billion is a large pension. Right. >> Right. Yeah. So if I can just make a point to that, you know, to have a lot of these restricted funds. Look what's happening now with the Ivy League
schools where they needed the money. They suddenly find out that those returns that they've been telling every other investment manager have been that they're so superior to everybody else, they're not anymore. They can't get out of stuff about taking 30% discounts and
things like that. So what has Barard done? what has Princeton done? They they went out and issuing bonds in the market, get liquidity because they can't get out of its private equity and all these other things. So, I mean, it just backs up my my my my point. The marks
look great until you need the money. The only price that counts is the price you sell it at. >> That's right. >> Well, there's liquidity until there's not liquidity. And that happens. >> Liquidity is always there until you need it. That's what we say on the trading desk.
>> You can sell you can sell something in but it depes the key thing >> and that's where liquidity. So >> I mean we're already kind of running into that because we put a request in and you're saying that we got part of it but not all of it and that was what four months ago 3 months ago
>> couple years that was in 2022. >> Scratch that. Two years ago >> September 2022. So yeah, which is why why we don't unlike an um endowment which has 75 plus% in
private investments. That's why >> we had 10% target. So I do want to address that. Right. Again, >> no suggest. >> Yeah, we have 90 93% of our fund today access tomorrow. So we're good on liquidity. We're not going to miss a benefit payment because we're we're
we're tied up into the real estate fund. But I I think that's that's a perfectly fine comp compromise that I I would support. Um you know uh part of my thought of of where if we decide to go in global bonds would be to reduce our
real estate target. Right? Right now we have a 10% we're at seven. If we have room to just make that change now we don't have to ask for anymore. But if we're asking for more money we can take it down further. And uh I think that that that makes sense to me.
So, glo the global bonds, that's your next presentation for an alternative. >> Yeah, I think uh uh can can I say just Mr. Chair for for meeting uh if you're changing how much money you're taking out the refund?
Somebody should make a motion in a second. >> Well, I think we're here. I think we're going to go on to the next presentation to hear what the alternative before we start >> that that that decision is independent of what you decide on the real estate. So, I I agree we should we shouldn't move on to the global >> we you need a motion on what we're going
to do. >> Can I just interject so we don't just kick this, you know, down the road again? I think we should um put in how much liquidity is in our, you know, private real estate at this
point and how much can we can we request to >> So, you can request every single penny that you have. What will you get? So, I could tell you a last quarter you you would gotten you for intercontinental you would have gotten 10% of what you had asked for
>> principal has been more liquid so they've already paid us everything that we we've asked for um uh >> and the current allocation >> so now I don't know what they paid out last so I don't know what percent of their redemption queue this is for principal but I do know intercontinental
paid so if they had a billion dollars of of of capital that people have asked for they paid out $100,000 for $100 million 10% of what what they asked for. >> I think there's a strong case for
um you know moving to a more liquid lower fee structure. >> Um >> I agree >> position and so I I mean I would support you know taking at least half of our real estate you know commitment current real estate
commitment out and converting to liquidity. Now, if we wanted to go into, you know, short-term treasuries or intermediates or something like that for the time being or to even go into, you know, into uh you know, REITs, I would
support that just as a as a diver I mean, I I think that's a diversifier within that asset class. Um it's a lower fee structure. It's, you know, much higher uh liquidity and it, you know, we're committed. I mean, we're going to
generate the same higher volatility, but we're probably generate, you know, positive information, posit positive sharp returns. We can sharp ratios and uh we'll add value to the to the plan. Um maybe with a little bit more volatility, but you know, it's no one's
you're not going to see it. If we request >> such a small part, >> if we request a liquidation of some or all of intercontinental or principal, when would we see those dollars? >> I have no idea. That's the thing, right? >> No, but I mean, we're not going to see it tomorrow.
>> Yeah. So, so every this calendar year evaluate liquidity. Do they have someone that can buy some buildings to generate liquidity? And I agree that they aren't they're not incentive really like >> search out, right? They don't want to lose.
>> What I'm what I'm really asking is if if we made the request >> Yeah. >> today in October, >> have we, you know, are do we have any opportunity to see any money before the end of this calendar year? >> So, yeah. So, we'll get if we did it today, we would get um well, I have to
go back and look because sometimes it's it's it's >> I mean, if it's quarterly, there's a cut off and it could be three or four months later. >> Every quarter they they evaluate and they pay out their queue. So last quarter um Intercontinental paid out 10% of what they had in the queue. So we'll
get whatever incremental dollars we had that we get we get add to that queue right and then they make a determination of what they're going to pay out given their the liquidity that they have. >> Right. So with with that ill liquidity what I was just responding to was do we make the investment decision today when
we don't know how much we're getting or when we're getting. My recommendation, I would recommend that we just put that like we do now into our R&D account which goes into a money market mutual fund and then at a certain point if we accumulate enough and we get it, hey, we got 50% of what we asked for this quarter look at the next meeting, we can
make a decision on that. But yeah, I don't think it makes sense right now to say we're going to put it in X when we don't even know what the amounts are. Yeah, I think we you what I would recommend is that we just submit the redemption. >> Um and then um you know we'll I I'll
report on that every quarter what we gotten from those funds and we can make a determination on what to do with it other than the money market fund. Um if we get to kind of a scale where it makes sense. >> Does that make sense? Just one point of clar uh VNQ that
you're referring to that's an ETF correct as opposed to or or you >> I think you can buy it either way. >> I'm I'm I'm agnostic of the ETF to mutual fund >> cuz you were talking >> I did all my returns on using the mutual
fund numbers because they cuz they went I went back as far on my returns as what was in our book for the pension fund. That's why I need to go back 10 years because I didn't have those those numbers. So, >> yeah. I I just
>> Yeah, it's 61 like >> try to withdraw 50% of each, you know, >> cuz you don't need to wait till 4:00 to sell BNQ. You can sell it. >> What are the What are the current y
>> what are the current yields on these rates? So I just pulled up BQ because I just wanted the expense ratio is the same as the institutional mutual fund. >> Probably seven points I think. >> So yeah.13 for that fun. Let's see if I
can find the yield. >> I think it's >> I mean get paid while you wait. >> What's what what income what has been the yields on our private on our private real estate? >> Right around 4%. Right. I think I think
it's around >> so comparable. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Like three and a half on the principal September of 2025 and intercontinental was 3.86. We have 800,000 in intercontinental and
uh about 740 in the principal. >> I'm sorry I can't find the uh the yield here on the the Vanguard website. I think about five and a quart something like that.
>> I think I just have it >> I think something like that. >> VNQ >> V and Q around five and a halfish. >> Okay. The current unadjusted effective yield is 3.5% as 3.56%. on which
>> as this is for the VNQ ETF >> I think >> right okay guess we have to wait for the member who left >> so just to give you should I wait I >> I think we have to now
>> okay >> I mean I mean conceptually I would recommend here proposed that we take you know put in to sell 50% redeem 50% of our private real estate. >> Yeah, it's just I think it's just >> to the extent that we get funds we'll
we'll >> redeploy them to the to the extent we get any redemptions. >> So as of as of 9:30 we had $1.556 million between the two funds. So that's 87 intercontinental
>> about 7% >> 1.56 >> intercontinental >> or principal >> so just rounding up about 750,000 >> I just suggested that we sell half
>> half of that okay >> and then we then we redeploy as as funds become available >> so the yeah so half of that would be 750 half of that so 375 5,000 from each of the managers would get us down to about half of where we're at right now.
>> Are you making a motion? >> Who is slower to um liquidate >> over the last few years? And it's hard to because it could change. So, I just want to make that caveat, but Intercontinental was much slower than than >> Do we have do we have a current request for liquidation at all or
>> Yeah. So, yeah, we've gotten a decent amount back, but we still have a little bit of outstanding with uh Intercontinental. >> Intercontinental. I'd have to I'd have to go and grab a laptop and figure out exactly what that dollar amount is. >> So, if we got half out, that would take us to like three and a half% of the total fund.
>> That's right. Okay. >> You have to do half%. >> We already have some request. So, we have to figure, right? I mean, it's more >> standing. We have a standing request.
Let me see if I can find >> and there's a shot that principal will have >> if we liquidate half a principal we'll probably see that much sooner than intercontinental. >> Yeah. >> Fine. >> Yeah. It's not neither is really not
it's not >> it's not moving the needle that >> yes >> yes it's also a complicating factor right >> so intercontinental has slightly we have slightly more with intercontinental um
>> the only thing worse than being illquid is being illquid with bad returns >> yeah to get the >> subpar returns we'll call them right >> to get the exact amount that we have outstanding I'd have to fire up my laptop and do a
little bit of work. >> I think I mean >> just do a $5 amount. >> Yeah. I mean, if you want to do >> 400 out of principal and this is all rounded. I mean, if you guys want, I
could do the exact math and get back to you. But I think in order >> the spirit of what we're trying to do, if you did 400 for principal and 350 for um Intercontinental, um when you add, we'd probably have about let's say if we got twothirds of our money to 150, we have $50,000 left.
Um that makes sense to me. I think that's roughly around right. Then the net result will be be even for each of them um and get to our kind of target of reducing the exposure. So it's good. >> Yeah. >> So you're suggesting intercon 350 in
addition to what we already have in there. >> Yes. >> In terms of request. >> So I'll make a motion that we remove 400,000 out of the principal real estate and another 350,000 out of the intercontinental real estate.
>> I'll second that motion. Okay. >> All in favor? I just Okay, thank you. Good discussion. >> Sorry. >> I second it. >> All right, we'll get that over and get it.
>> All right. Um so the next presentation so one that's it's been a long discussion. Uh are we prepared to go through the the options for global bond managers today? Um I just want to take the temperature.
I don't know >> what was the what's the imp what's the impetus for that just because I missed a few of us were at the last meeting. >> Yeah. So I I just I felt we don't have any non-dollar assets in the pension right now. Um all of our domestic
equities and or our equities or domestic equities. Um and um we were having a discussion about you know tariff impacts on on potentially you know we're at we up until six months ago we were at all-time highs in the dollar. You know you look at a longterm
chart of the US dollar it kind of tends to go over time. we're at the top. You know, I don't know what, you know, the standard deviation is, but um one, you know, diversify the pension might be an opportunity to get invested in something that we don't have. Um
rates are attractive generally um relative to the last 15 years. So, that that was all kind of the the discussion that that we you know, I brought up last quarter of potentially putting a little bit of money into global bonds. And how how would you fund it coming out
of >> from from the strategic asset allocation perspective? I would I would add it as a new new asset class and the source would be real estate because we're already we have a 10% target in real estate. We're at seven. We just reduced it to lower
than five. So I would just take it from that. And again, it kind of gets to if you think about back in 2017, I'd have to look to see what the IPS was before it, but our recommendation would have been to put 10% in real estate and take it from fixed income at that time. That's would have been would have been
wouldn't have came from equity more than likely would have came from the fixed income. So this helps us kind of get back to um you know, again, an income generating asset that provides some diversification, the spirit of what we were trying to do with real estate. That's how I would think about it.
How do what how do the uh character what are the characteristics relative to let's say you know US a you don't have those in here or do you >> no I just have the the global a but you can kind of cross reference if you look
at the like so global bonds up until the last six months for the last decade have not done as well because the dollar has been struck right so there's been kind of a well for some for for a true um non-doll hedged global bond fund,
which we have one of those in here. The returns don't look that good relative to to um US bonds historically. So, this is kind of a you know a a um an idea to you know being proactive to
add something with you might have a little bit of a tailwind from um uh you know any dollar weakness that might be sustained. Now you might disagree with that and then we can not go down that route but um but we you can see we have some good funds that compare favorably
to um even historically to a normal kind of US aggregate bond fund but there you know there's some caveats there they're more credit focused so not as much government exposure and then you know the PIMCO global bond fund we can get into this that we have here that's PIMCO
loves derivatives and you you know, they like state they have like, you know, exposure to sovereign debt, etc., but it's all kind of done in a kind of very less than transparent uh way because of the way PIMCO runs their their money and
and just, you know, they have so much money they can't get cash bonds. They can't go out and buy, you know, whatever, you know, Argentine debt or or Brazil debt. They have to do it through replication use. And the vice mayor might know this better as his his background about PIMCO's trading desk,
but yeah, they they use a lot of derivatives to get exposures. >> Yeah. Yeah, definitely. They PIMCO has a very heavy derivative position. It's very difficult to follow. The reason why I know is because one of their funds, my
short-term corporate bond fund was in my competitive universe, by the way. and uh over over longer periods of time, but they're very they they'll have leverage like 33%. Now, it's not leverage like you you you you would think in the in
the equity market. It's sort of uh bal uh balanced off, but if I could just make one comment and I'll shut up on this discussion. One thing the board has to think about, and I'm not against global bonds, is whether you want to do them foreign currency hedged, where
you're you're basically not taking risk against the US dollar, or whether you want to do them unhedged, where you are taking risk against the dollar, but you can also have potential performance returns uh against that. If they're if
if it's currency hedged, the hedges cost you return because it's like buying a form of insurance. So, but you know, if you're if you're unhedged, you're going to have versus versus when you take returns and put them back relative to a
dollar return because that's how you're paying out your your employees or dollars. the returns are going to be more volatile versus a US domestic uh bond >> which you know may not necessarily be a a a bad thing but that's something that
you have to think about you go in that >> right I agree that's why I said you know a a a non-hedge fund and you'll see it here we have the Lumis fund great team great great great great team over at Lumis been this a long time their returns just don't look competitive
relative the other three funds that are all hedged over the last decade. So, if you look at the 10-year number, you're going to be like, "Why would I consider this?" Well, it kind of depends on how you view that. Do you want do you want to eliminate currency risk or do you want to accept some non-dollar currency exposure that thinking that it might
actually be beneficial in the future? So, I I completely >> We want to have a manager that has a discre that's why you pick a manager has a discretion. >> Yeah, exactly. So I >> So what do you guys think? Do you want to go through this? Do you want to >> You have it now. Do you want to table it
and and review them and come back next quarter? What do you think? >> Send it. >> I have a I have a I've always had a personal bias, you know, and just you know the li the li our liabilities are are you know functionally US dollar
liabilities, right? I mean, our beneficiaries, uh, participants are are dollar based. They're US-based. So, um, sometimes I say, is it really worth it? You know, it's it's kind of like adding an ingredient to a cake or something and
like, is it does it what does it do? Well, maybe you don't taste it, but maybe it's like the wrong ingredient and you really taste it. It's it's kind of like uh and it overpowers the cake. Um, so I mean I've always felt like that about US equities also. Um, and I kind
of wonder if there's not another way to um, skin this cat by, you know, maybe moving out on a, you know, credit spectrum or something like that, you know, with with US, you know, with US-based investments or you you know, I
don't know. I mean what because what are you already said a lot of these benchmarks are are credit you know they're not they're not government >> debt you have four funds here two of them are global credit so the there's a PIMCO diversified income fund that I use a lot so that that has 60% US exposure
40% non US but it's it's all credit so it's securitized it's you know uh EM it's and it's you know they have exposure to non uh non-investment grade so it's just you know they're using their global platform and then we have this Harford fund that's subadvised by
Wellington that again is a multis sector credit fund that they're going into those same sectors. So that they're like kind of the two that um u you know if you're not you know if you you want something that is taking on a little bit more credit risk and and you know you'll get a yield advantage over the long term
though they would be the two funds that I would think about here and you'll see the historical results are pretty strong there. Um and then you have you have this you have this um Pinco Global Bond Fund which is more of a you know it's a
you know basically it's it's they have sovereign debt a lot of things but you'll see that it's hard to tell because the numbers are so wonky because of the derivative exposure but historically they're significantly underweight uh you know government bonds and both you know domestic and
internationally and they're taking a lot of credit risk and then you have this this luminous sales fund which is you know again a global true global bond unhedged product that is a little bit more traditional than the the PIMCO um global bond opportunities fund. So I
wanted to kind of give a couple different perspectives for you guys to consider uh here. So we're this is being considered in lie of okay real estate on the one hand and then but also I think it would be
>> domestic fixed income. >> It would be yeah relative to our domestic fixed income. So I I think to do this we probably have to look at like the return and risk characteristics relative to you know maybe our current benchmark like the A or something or
>> I mean what's the >> before we start drilling down into managers just to see if it if the diversification I'm not you know yeah this is kind of not my domain so you know global fixed income so you guys are the fixed income guys >> domestic huh
>> well I think I think so I get what We can I can certainly put together something like that >> from the standpoint of the plan like what is it what is it what perspectively what would what would it be doing? >> Yeah. What's it solving for? >> Yeah. So it would add another it's
safer than equity. So it's a different type of exposure. It's different than >> than US bonds too. So it's almost I get what you're coming from like it's like okay let's look at it relative to where the source would be. But it would be its own thing. Um that would provide a different you know you're going to get
some diversification benefits from being in global bonds relative to a US bond. So it's kind of its own category but generally speaking it's fixed income. So it falls into that that bucket. >> But but generally over the long term I
mean the the the total returns are higher than US terms. Well, it kind of depends. Again, that >> like let's just say of comparable credit quality. >> Yeah. So, >> I mean, what what is the >> So, you're going to be a little bit extended, but if you look at it's a
little bit of an apples to see. So, yeah. So, um I printed these off without page numbers. I'm sorry. >> Really? >> I'm kind of looking at the last page. >> It's global. But if you look at the the let's see
>> fiveyear number for um in in our quarterly report. >> Yeah, I look I was looking at that the five year number for domestic fixed income.3 and then you know most of these other than the index and the Lumis fund you're
getting a big premium here and then I don't have a 10-year number in um in our quarterly report. So you can see like since inception the domestic fixed income policy index is 2.59 since 2013. So it's 12 years. So if you
look you know 10 years you got a premium for particularly for the the credit funds the diversified income and and the strategic income fund. But you are taking more you know that's more credit risk with those funds because there there is going to be some
below investment grade exposure um which you'll see in the characteristics here for those credit funds. So you say like an apples to apples I would have to come back to you and and show you a more um a different analysis than what you have in front of you and
how correlated are these global returns to let's say you know court US >> I don't know the answer I think that would be correlation% say why
>> yeah I get what you're saying yeah >> yeah I think that the context otherwise we're kind of shooting in the you guys I think I'm I mean if we're thinking if we're being asked to consider a an additional
asset class before we start drilling into managers I think we need to understand what does adding this additional asset class do for the returns and the volatility >> first question are they liquid. >> That answer
>> I knew that was coming. >> Marvel of the story. >> It's liquid after 10 years. I'm out. >> It's not a roast hotel. >> All right. I think I get the gist of what what you guys are asking for. It's very very I think a good good question. So um let me come back to you next
quarter. I'll put together, you know, not just I'll bring this update it, but I'll bring another analysis to give you a sense for some of the kind of more asset allocation types of of decision um and some of those metrics, correlations and kind of how that all looks. Um but I
will say right I think you know from a historical perspective US is going to look better primarily because particularly for anything that has not that's not hedged because you've had this tailwind for the dollar and that's part of the story here is like if you think that the dollar might weaken and
it might be structural and you might be in a period an extended period then this might be an option to to consider even though historically it's not going to look good but perspectively there's going to be a tailwind for non-dollar exposure potentially. So that that's that's part of the the deal, but I think
we can put some numbers together to kind of give you a better picture of what this looks like um to make a more informed decision. So I'll go ahead and do that. >> All right. And then lastly, I have update for the investment policy statement.
I did not update anything in the strategic asset allocation, but um we can follow that. But I'm also thinking um well, maybe we should just wait till we get get some money to adjust the real
estate because our real estate target is 10 right now. you know, we're at we're we're we're at seven because we're underweight, >> but and we just put got more money. I'm thinking, does it does it make sense to to lower that target now or should we just wait till we get more money out of
it and then kind of take it down to 5% or whatever the the remainder is at that time? >> Well, I mean, our minimum we have a target is 10, but we have a minimum of zero. >> Yeah, we So, we're within policy right now. That's pretty that kind of gives us
some reason. >> Yeah. The the only the only thing that that I'll say is that we base our our policy index on that 10% target, right? So our our fund policy that we compare the total fund to is based on these strategic targets. So if we ever get to
a point where we have zero in real estate, doesn't make sense. Just because we can go down to zero, we're still going to have a 10% in our policy index. Unless I don't think we're at a a problem now, but down the line I just want to give you a heads up >> because that makes sense. Kind of you'll be a little bit apples to oranges when
you're comparisoning that unless we change that. But I'll keep it that for now and we can adjust it time. But if you flip to page six, you did you talk last quarter to them about the Israel? So last quarter in July there was a new
law passed where um >> not only can you not you can you >> sure >> there's two. Um there was during the legislative session um there was kind of an expansion of the requirements on that
Israel. Um the SBA has long been subject to a requirement that they can invest in entities that Israel and they have a list of companies. There's 18 companies on it. 12 of them are some form of univer
they're on the list because they own my understanding they're trying to get somebody to buy it get off these list but at any rate um you know there are there are a couple of foreign countries that are on the list but univer probably
um the SBA actually the legislature expanded um the requirements under there. So, first off, any any contract that you all enter into from this point forward will need to have a provision in it that indicates
that if the entity that you're entering into an agreement with becomes an entity that boycots Israel, um, you have the right to to get out of the contract. The second thing they did was they
expanded the entities that they actually it used to be companies that and they've now expanded it into entities that become and so local governments which you are one can be found to be entity can be
added to that list um as a scrutinized entity um school boards universities local government in general can now be found to be entities scrutinized that entities that boy
can be added to the scrutinized list. Um and so your contracts can be voided right by the entities if you have any governmental entities that you enter into a contract. Um so one of the things that we looked at was you know whether
investing in entities that whether you know having as of your in your portfolio could mean that you are boycotting Israel and therefore be put on that list. So, we're recommending that you
amend your investment policy guidelines to follow the provisions of the state board administration. um that you would not invest you would ask your your managers not to invest in companies that have
um so what that means is if you own directly um with with an investment manager um one of those entities that are on the list you would divest you would ask that manager to divest from that that
sell all of the lead. If you owned it through a mutual fund, your requirement is that you notify the mutual fund company that there is a list in Florida that that of entities that boy Israel and you want
them to create for you that does not have. So you said that you you notify your manager to request that they abandon but >> if it's an indirect if it's an indirect
holding if it's a direct holding you would need to to divest from it but an indirect >> otherwise you have to have some proof that you some evidence that you notify the entity the manager that you had requested
>> or you would be subject to violation. >> Yes. So you have this requirement already with companies that are complicit um in things that are going on and you already have that requirement
and there is a process set up at MAR where they notify your your mutual fund companies on an annual basis indicating remember there's a list you need to look at this as you buy stocks and not buy anything that's on this particular list.
So they would just add the the boycotting Israel list which is basically in the same in the same place. The first button is scrutiniz [Music] so it you know it doesn't add too much
to to the criteria. [Music] Does this have a name like a nickname for this rule? >> So the the law back in 2010 was called the Protecting Florida's Investment Act.
>> The original >> It's under the same like statute number, right? >> Yes. What is the penalty for not divesting >> for the entity >> or for you all? Well, not us
specifically, but if the if an entity did not divest from >> if you asked if you asked the manager that you owned the stocks and they didn't do what you asked them to do. >> What What if the entity didn't ask the
manager to divest? >> Mutual fund. So, the mutual fund, if you ask them to to divest and they do not, you can stay invested in them in a mutual fund. There's no but if they make available an option of their mutual fund
without those stocks in it, you have to move over to that, >> right? And then what's the penalty if you don't move over from the state? >> Well, the issue would be in violation of your investment policy,
>> right? >> What's the recourse that the state has against the board or whatever? you violation of your investment policy guidance or the extent to which they can find you in violation of your investment policy guidance they could
talk to you they could withhold your money you know I mean they have kind of a broad range of >> right I mean is it a is it a criminal violation is it a civil violation >> not a criminal violation so so to be clear the statute does not require you
to adopt the provisions of not investing in companies that boycott you. What is what the statute says is you can be found to be boycotting Israel. And I can't tell you today that
investing in unilver isn't enough to get you on the list. So that's why we're we're recommending that you you follow the guidance on this and you know actually
legislator guidance and the rules that they apply to the >> you are not mandated to do that >> I would unless >> just to confirm then it's it's mariner who has a responsibility to make sure
we're in compliance and monitor >> exactly Yeah. So, every every year that we have since 2010, we send these letters to every mutual fund that a Florida based client has and say exactly here's the list, divest
um and uh if not offer another fund. And if not, then I mean we don't say it, but then we we're we're covering our bases from a legal perspective and allowing us to continue to maintain the investments that we have. But we have a paper trail
for every one of our clients, for every fund that we invest in doing this every year. Yes. >> And 100% of the mutual funds who have been asked to divest of the things on the list don't. >> Yes.
>> For 15 years. >> Any other questions from the board? >> All right. Do you have a motion put forward? >> Okay. Second. >> I'll second that. >> All in favor? >> I >> I >> All right. >> All right.
And that concludes your investment report for this quarter. Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. Appreciate your time. >> Um All right. Bonnie, board attorney, go ahead. >> Okay. So, um, the first thing that I want to report to you on is good
education. >> Um, this is a United States Supreme Court that was just recently decided. Um, it's I'm bringing it to you for a couple of reasons. First off, it's it's unusual for the United States Supreme Court to to get involved in things that
that uh you'd be interested in, right? Um, so this tangentially involves your disability processing. Um, but it's also a a case out of a Florida municipality. Um, and it involves a a Florida
governmental worker, a firefighter. So, a firefighter in the city of Sanford um developed Parkinson's and she was unable to continue to to do her job. Um she had the opportunity to buy health insurance from the municipality when she left. Um
but at the time that she left, the city only allowed people who are on disability retirement to buy it for two years. People who went out on normal retirements were able to buy it for till they reach age 65. At the end of her 2-year period, she
said, "I you you discriminated against you." And it was because I'm disabled. Um and she filed a lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Um the United States Supreme Court took the case and said um sorry you filed under
the wrong law. You the Americans with Disabilities Act covers people who say I can perform the functions of my job with or without a reasonable accommodation. But you're saying I can't perform the the functions of my job with or without a reasonable accommodation. And so you
you sued under the wrong law. So you lose. Um it's instructful. It's it it gives us um some some direction and and literally like three weeks before the United States Supreme Court case came out, one
of the funds that our firm represents had an individual who filed an Americans with Disabilities Act case saying I'm able to perform my functions as a police officer with or without a reasonable accommodation and filed a disability
application saying I can't perform my the job the essential functions of my job with or without a reasonable accommodation. And so, you know, our our board without the guidance from the United States Supreme Court said, "Well, you you got to pick a lane, right? You can't you can't maintain both of those."
And so, they put the disability application on file. So, so, you know, this could actually be, you know, a circumstance that comes up before, but it also was about the the ability to buy the health insurance and kind of, you
know, that discriminatory process whe or whether it was discriminatory that you could only buy it for two years if you were to take over you could buy it into retirement. >> So was the issue that she wanted to get
the medical benefits in retirement. So there's a Florida statute 112801 that mandates that municipalities allow people to buy health insurance into their retirement at the full cost. It
doesn't have to be subsidized. And so um many retirees buy their health insurance. >> Interesting. And could you tell me that statute one more time? >> The second item is um
we have a reporting requirement that's due this year. We have a bienial requirement that we make a report of our decision making in voting and adherence to the fiduciary standards. This is something that we
first did in 2023. Um in 2023 we took your investment policy guidelines. We put a cover page on it which indicated that you were submitting the report pursuant to the requirements of the division of retirement. um that the investment
policy guidelines um govern the investments and fiduciary standards. Um and this is what you follow when you make your decisions um to invest. um that you amended your your um
investment policy guidelines to follow the requirement that year that you would only make decisions based on pecuniary factors that you wouldn't use any social, political or ideological reasons to make investments or to select an
investment manager. Um that you communicated that information to the managers which which we did in 2023. Um that you also indicated to the and we do add them into any any future
contracts that you enter into with an investment manager. Um and that you communicated to the managers that they should use that in their proxy voting. Again, information we include in the contracts going forward. Um and um
we file we filed that report in 2023. So, um I would say 95% of the pension plans in Florida filed this same type of report. Um we had 100% filing in 2023. We're expecting
that to be the same. We didn't get any push back or any questions from the division of retirement. They didn't give us any guidance. >> Right. That was the one where you weren't sure what the report was supposed to look like >> exactly. Thank you for remembering that. Um so anyway, we're going to do the same
thing this year. Um your administrator is well aware and they will file it. Um they have already signed up to to file it. So at the beginning of October, there was an email that went out just asking for for each pension plan to have somebody to sign up to file. Your
administrator did that. The portal will open I think November the 13th and it's due by December. So we'll make sure that that all >> and we don't need to do anything individually. >> Excellent. >> All unless you have questions.
>> No. Great. Thank you. Uh Troy plan administrator. Go ahead. >> So we're going to run through this stuff pretty quick. Uh update on state monies. Last year for police received 14,243. This year the number is
100,32 343 an increase of $18,100. >> I'm sorry. Could you say that one more time? >> Sure. The want the total numbers. >> Yes, please. >> Last year's number was 114,243. This year he received 132,3
an increase of $18,100 for police for >> And what was that for the fire? >> Fire last year was 153,217. This year is 203,59
sorry 952 203952. increase of 50,735. That's the highest number that I've seen. Pretty >> significant. >> Any questions on that?
Um, and so I'll move right on to uh the 20 26 membership renewal. This is due every year at this time. For I believe it's the third year in a row. They have not increased the fee. It's the exact three years in a row $750. So if there's
no questions about that, I would look for a motion to approve paying the membership fee to >> do we have a motion to approve the uh membership? >> I'll make a motion to approve. >> I'll second that. >> Okay. All in favor? >> I
>> I thank you. We'll get that paid and as you know with any kind of so we'll move right down to the educational opportunities has a trustee school coming up February the 1st through the 4th ro
the process for that is all you have to do is send me an email indicate that you wish to go I send that to our analyst who signed you up and then send you directly back your approval to go and your process to pay for your hotel you pay for your
on your own as well as your food and keep those tracked on the form that he or she sent you. Okay. So, like I said, the only thing you need to do is send me an email saying, "I wish I'd like to be signed up for the class. I'll take care of the rest of it." All right. No other questions. Then
that's all I have for that. We can move down to the consent agenda. That's all right. >> Yes. >> Okay. We'll just run through that. The consent agenda is invoices are paid. Um we have that we need to get signed up on and also the fund report which is all the
money that's coming out retirements etc. So there's no specific questions motion to approve agenda >> any specific questions about the consent agenda.
>> All right, motion to approve. >> Second it. >> Well, we need somebody >> Oh, you making a motion. I'll make a motion to approve it. >> All right. And a second. >> Second. >> All right. All in favor? >> I. >> Perfect. >> Anything else, Troy?
>> Fantastic. Um, last thing we have on here is uh trustes reports, discussion, action. Anything else you gentlemen need need to bring up? Uh the only thing that I uh would like to bring up and uh I'm not sure exactly um as far as the uh the pension and the
drop statements. I know we had a conversation about this um in the past as far as the members um were receiving I believe one per year and um we had talked about trying to see if there was a way to get a quarterly statement being
that the numbers were already run and I don't remember how we left off with that conversation. I don't know as far as that goes. So that may requ >> so who who would that would be with you
>> to that conversation. >> Yeah. >> So we would I I'll get that and I'll have that forward next meeting. we can prove that and if so I can already have that in the works I doubt it's too exorbitant but it is
>> right I just remember we we talked about it before and I don't know if we if we came to a conclusion about it >> sure >> so I'll get the dollar
>> perfect thank you very much uh if nobody has anything else our next meeting Tuesday, January 27th, 2026, 2 p.m. Any issues there. All right, perfect. Meeting is a journ.